• What Happened to WTC Building 7 on 9/11?
    1,009 replies, posted
Electricity is actually magic.
[QUOTE=Artzeponozae;25009253]Electricity is actually magic.[/QUOTE] this building is now diamonds [img]http://www.wtc7.net/docs/wtc7_pile_s.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;25008945]Also: Why has nobody ever sued the government for a family member dying in 9/11 claiming that the government did it? Wouldn't this conclusively solve it, because both sides would present evidence supporting their sides, and the courts would decide who is at fault.[/QUOTE] It would probably be dismissed as groundless. Searching for "9/11 wrongful death lawsuit" and similar stuff comes up with a lot of conspiracy sites claiming that people's lawsuits against the airline companies were thwarted by a Jewish conspiracy, but nothing about them suing the US government directly.
I still find it extremely strange how hardly no one even heard this building collapse that day. I've seen interviews with Americans in New York City who attest to the only towers having collapsed being WTC 1 & 2. You'd think a third building collapse would have garnered national media attention in the same way the other two did... on the same day. [editline]04:52PM[/editline] that isn't to say there wasn't media attention... but it was extremely limited at best.
Facepunch is not a democracy. TH89 or any mod does not need written permission from Garry himself before he can ban anyone. People used to be banned for poor spelling. Also, I was looking through some of those 'journals', and one of them talks about how the WTC building was a concrete cored structure. It was a hollow tube structure. Site credibility is kind of not existent at this point.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25010620]I still find it extremely strange how hardly no one even heard this building collapse that day. I've seen interviews with Americans in New York City who attest to the only towers having collapsed being WTC 1 & 2. You'd think a third building collapse would have garnered national media attention in the same way the other two did... on the same day. [editline]04:52PM[/editline] that isn't to say there wasn't media attention... but it was extremely limited at best.[/QUOTE] well maybe it had to do with nobody being in WTC 7 but there was several hundred in the other two buildings.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25010620]I still find it extremely strange how hardly no one even heard this building collapse that day. I've seen interviews with Americans in New York City who attest to the only towers having collapsed being WTC 1 & 2. You'd think a third building collapse would have garnered national media attention in the same way the other two did... on the same day. [editline]04:52PM[/editline] that isn't to say there wasn't media attention... but it was extremely limited at best.[/QUOTE] The area was evacuated, people were scared shitless and tryingto get away from there/view whats going on from afar. Since it's a much smaller building, and the cameras weren't really pointing at WTC 7 much, it's not surprising there were fewer witnesses. Lack of witnesses means nothing.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25010620]I still find it extremely strange how hardly no one even heard this building collapse that day. I've seen interviews with Americans in New York City who attest to the only towers having collapsed being WTC 1 & 2. You'd think a third building collapse would have garnered national media attention in the same way the other two did... on the same day. [editline]04:52PM[/editline] that isn't to say there wasn't media attention... but it was extremely limited at best.[/QUOTE] Maybe it didn't generate attention because the area was evacuated, and it was the general consensus that it fell due to the damage sustained by the towers. It was a small piece of collateral damage. Not to mention that the media still had plenty to talk about, considering the fact that America had just been the victim of an international terrorist attack, thousands of people had lost their lives, and two of the larges buildings in the country were destroyed.
Which is more interesting, a short building with nobody in it being destroyed due to collateral damage or TWO TALL BUILDINGS, of the same height, with quite a few people in them, being destroyed due to a direct hit from a FUCKING AIRPLANE
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25010620]I still find it extremely strange how hardly no one even heard this building collapse that day. I've seen interviews with Americans in New York City who attest to the only towers having collapsed being WTC 1 & 2. You'd think a third building collapse would have garnered national media attention in the same way the other two did... on the same day. [editline]04:52PM[/editline] that isn't to say there wasn't media attention... but it was extremely limited at best.[/QUOTE] I can recall watching the news and seeing Building 7 collapse while i watched.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25010620]I still find it extremely strange how hardly no one even heard this building collapse that day. I've seen interviews with Americans in New York City who attest to the only towers having collapsed being WTC 1 & 2. You'd think a third building collapse would have garnered national media attention in the same way the other two did... on the same day. [editline]04:52PM[/editline] that isn't to say there wasn't media attention... but it was extremely limited at best.[/QUOTE] After being defeated in [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1004807&page=2]the other conspiracy thread[/url], VeoSeo24 craftily switches to this one :riker:
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25010620]I still find it extremely strange how hardly no one even heard this building collapse that day. I've seen interviews with Americans in New York City who attest to the only towers having collapsed being WTC 1 & 2. You'd think a third building collapse would have garnered national media attention in the same way the other two did... on the same day. [editline]04:52PM[/editline] that isn't to say there wasn't media attention... but it was extremely limited at best.[/QUOTE] WTC 7: 47 floors. 1 & 2 WTC: 110 floors Guess what people were going to pay attention to more.
[url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1005283]What have you to say about this?[/url] Fixed the url...
A proxy..?
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25011631][url=http://www.pandorazbox.info/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mYWNlcHVuY2guY29tL3Nob3d0aHJlYWQucGhwP3Q9MTAwNTI4Mw%3D%3D]What have you to say about this?[/url][/QUOTE] I love proxies?
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25011631][url=http://www.pandorazbox.info/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mYWNlcHVuY2guY29tL3Nob3d0aHJlYWQucGhwP3Q9MTAwNTI4Mw%3D%3D]What have you to say about this?[/url][/QUOTE] That explains it, they took the towers down with a proxy
Me too. Check link again.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25011631][url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1005283]What have you to say about this?[/url][/QUOTE] Welcome to 10 years ago? [editline]01:52AM[/editline] Seriously though, that's interesting and hopefully some heads will roll over it but it has nothing to do with 9/11
How is that not directly related to what happened on 9/11? They were looking for a pretext for a war, and they got one. It's not much of a stretch to say that [I]perhaps[/I] they had some sort of knowledge into what was going to happen.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25011893]How is that not directly related to what happened on 9/11? They were looking for a pretext for a war, and they got one. It's not much of a stretch to say that [I]perhaps[/I] they had some sort of knowledge into what was going to happen.[/QUOTE] This was after 9/11. That, plus the reason they gave for the invasion of Iraq was unrelated to 9/11, anyway (WMDs). Does every subject escape you? From current events to basic structural engineering and kinematics you just seem to know absolutely nothing, not even the simplest, most widely known things. There are no documents before it that mention anything about it.
^
Umm... about that... [Quote]Yet there is evidence that the Bush administration, from its very early days, was actively plotting to go to war with the Arab country. From a British memo that noted that “Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme” to memoirs by administration members Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill, there have been numerous disclosures that strongly suggest that the Bush administration was plotting a war against Iraq while recognizing it was not a threat to the United States.[/Quote] [editline]06:01PM[/editline] This happened BEFORE 9/11 obviously as prior to that we did not officially recognize Irag as a threat.
Even if so, why would that make our government plant explosives in several large towers and cause the deaths of several thousand civilians?
Pretext for a war that has only taken away our liberties at home, the lives of soldiers and citizens abroad, and else where. [editline]06:04PM[/editline] Among [i]many other things...[/i]
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25011995]Umm... about that... This happened BEFORE 9/11 obviously as prior to that we did not officially recognize Irag as a threat.[/QUOTE] Every document mentioned in the article you linked to was released after 9/11.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25011995]Umm... about that... [editline]06:01PM[/editline] This happened BEFORE 9/11 obviously as prior to that we did not officially recognize Irag as a threat.[/QUOTE] um. Do you know about this little thing called the first gulf war?
Pressing question for VeoSeo- How the fuck did you get "Irag"? Q and G aren't even anywhere NEAR each other. Do you not know how to spell it, or....?
Bush had wanted to go to war with Iraq, but that doesn't mean he would plot 9/11 to get it. You can't just say that because we went to war post 9/11 on false pretenses, that the declassification of a document showing that Bush had beef with Iraq automatically means that conspiracy theorists are right. Even if that were the case, there's still so much factual evidence stacked against the 9/11 conspiracies.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;25011893]How is that not directly related to what happened on 9/11? They were looking for a pretext for a war, and they got one. It's not much of a stretch to say that [I]perhaps[/I] they had some sort of knowledge into what was going to happen.[/QUOTE] So now you are also saying that the US did Anthrax attacks as well?
Someone I know got a fake anthrax letter in the mail a few weeks ago. :(
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.