Two gargantuan skyscrapers collapse. I don't think the City of New York has their building codes up-to-spec to withstand seismic activities.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;24809425]I'm just a young person who feels their duty is to call out injustices and shed light on the crap our government wants to keep in the dark.[/QUOTE]
now we know, and knowing is half the shitstorm.
ITT: Let's ignore physics.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;24808907]OP already has his mind set on there being a conspiracy. No amount of facts and logic is going to change that.[/QUOTE]
Arn't most conspiracy theorists like that? I have yet to see one "truther" switch opinions. They are stubborn fools. You could build an exact replica of the world trade center and crash an exact replica of a 767 into it and they would still say it was something else.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8[/media]
[editline]06:56PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;24809347]Seriously, Compare this, which didn't collapse:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtVRma5QS6k[/url]
With this:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTy3RYDj0lk[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh Jesus, this again?
That building did partially collapse. The top 11 floors were steel framed, those were the ones to collapse. The concrete inner core saved the rest of the building from completely collapsing and part of the 11 floors it supported.
[img]http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/staff/agentsmith/madrid.jpg[/img]
The World Trade Center was steel framed, not mention it lacked a concrete inner core. That's completely ignoring a fact that a jet flew into it going 560 miles an hour, full of jet fuel, destroying much of the support columns, blowing off the fire proofing, burning tons of paper and other office supplies and had to support the tons of building above the impact site.
The "This is the first time a steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire!" argument holds no water, there have been quite a few steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire, ranging from schools to highways. Certainly 9/11 was the first time in history a 'skyscraper' collapsed from fire, but it was also the first and only time an unprotected steel-framed building burned unchecked for a prolonged period of time. By the same logic we can say that 100% of unprotected steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.
I should also note that the new World Trade Center is being designed with a concrete core for this reason.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;24810551] [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL]
[URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8[/URL]
[editline]06:56PM[/editline]
Oh Jesus, this again?
That building did partially collapse. The top 11 floors were steel framed, those were the ones to collapse. The concrete inner core saved the rest of the building from completely collapsing and part of the 11 floors it supported.
[IMG]http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/staff/agentsmith/madrid.jpg[/IMG]
The World Trade Center was steel framed, not mention it lacked a concrete inner core. That's completely ignoring a fact that a jet flew into it going 560 miles an hour, full of jet fuel, destroying much of the support columns, blowing off the fire proofing, burning tons of paper and other office supplies and had to support the tons of building above the impact site.
The "This is the first time a steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire!" argument holds no water, there have been quite a few steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire, ranging from schools to highways. Certainly 9/11 was the first time in history a 'skyscraper' collapsed from fire, but it was also the first and only time an unprotected steel-framed building burned unchecked for a prolonged period of time. By the same logic we can say that 100% of unprotected steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.
I should also note that the new World Trade Center is being designed with a concrete core for this reason.[/QUOTE]
That seems to be the most logical 7 WTC explanation I've [I]ever[/I] seen.
Lets see, if you look at OPs pic the building to the left of 7 looks damaged from the top down.. Probably when the building tilted into it and started busted it's structure and collapses with that buildings support. Like a drunk person leaning on you.. they go down one way or the other. No one said that building had to be taken out.. also this theory would show that half the damage is HIDDEN by the other building.. not that it just magically sunk into a fucking sinkhole.
[QUOTE=OvB;24810706]That seems to be the most logical 7 WTC explanation I've seen.[/QUOTE]
And yet the opposing side will be likely to completely ignore it as "Uncited garbage"
What happened to WTC building 7?
It was left to burn while more pressing matters were attended to. There were two buildings that had already collapsed (with people inside of them, tower seven was fully evacuated.) Not to mention the hotel that also collapsed or the surrounding buildings that were on fire and not fully evacuated. Long story short, the manpower was needed elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Meep Moop;24810883]What happened to WTC building 7?
It was left to burn while more pressing matters were attended to. There were two buildings that had already collapsed (with people inside of them, tower seven was fully evacuated.) Not to mention the hotel that also collapsed or the surrounding buildings that were on fire and not fully evacuated. Long story short, the manpower was needed elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention the building was a goner. Heavy damage, plus raging fire. Might as well just clear the area and let it go while you deal with the rescue effort.
I've heard people saying "But why didnt the house fall another way?" "It clearly is a 'Controlled Demolition'"
Basic design of a skyscraper in a large city is designed to make the building collapse inwards, to avoid collateral damage to the buildings nearby.
Though planes flying into the buildings were not expected, so therefore they aren't going to try to support that in anyway.
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;24809148]This post only yet furthers my point and only shows your own insecurities being projected onto others. This is about knowing the truth. Wake up.[/QUOTE]
oh god I just realized what sheeple we are
it was [sp]illuminati[/sp]
I have proof:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWz0VmJsHtQ[/media]
i know it would be more reputable if it were low-quality and grainy but you gotta trust me on this one
Why would they destroy WTC 7 and leave the rest then, conspiracy theorists?
I ate a sandwich today, I put it together this morning and I used turkey, but when I bit into it at lunch it tasted like HAM
[b]HAM[/b]
the aliens are coming man :tinfoil:
Questions like these have been debated countless times and nothing we say will be any more correct than what trained engineers have already proved.
While I'm not a trutheir but i would say that eniginers for the 9/11 truth would be the best 9/11 truth site because it's run by enginers (Im on an iPod so I can't link so look it up on google)
[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;24814903]While I'm not a trutheir but i would say that eniginers for the 9/11 truth would be the best 9/11 truth site because it's run by enginers (Im on an iPod so I can't link so look it up on google)[/QUOTE]
most of which can't find their "degrees".
[QUOTE=Athena;24814967]most of which can't find their "degrees".[/QUOTE]
I never really went to the site but I do know that the president and the moan guys are enginers becuase they were on the bill o Reilly show were he called them liberals
if you believe the hypothesis that 9/11 was an inside job then anything relating to it will support your argument because you are fixated on it being true.
[QUOTE=Athena;24814967]most of which can't find their "degrees".[/QUOTE]
I have a degree* in Engineering**, and I can say 100% that it was an inside job***.
[sp]* half a Bachelor's
** Computer Engineering, with a minor in Web Development
*** The planes were technically inside when they did their damage[/sp]
I'm not quite sure if this is a dumb answer, but maybe it has to do with the height of the building.
[QUOTE=JoeyZ;24808503]Peer pressure.[/QUOTE]
That was mean, but I still laughed... I feel bad
[QUOTE=Rangrgoto1;24815071]I'm not quite sure if this is a dumb answer, but maybe it has to do with the height of the building.[/QUOTE]
I've been saying that for a while, but nobody listens.
"9/11 was an inside job because I read it somewhere and it sounded convincing."
[QUOTE=Trogdon;24815044]if you believe the hypothesis that 9/11 was an inside job then anything relating to it will support your argument because you are fixated on it being true.[/QUOTE]
That's true with anyone that has an idea about almost anything
I'm not saying I know what caused it, but I highly doubt anyone who jumps the shark to make the claim that it was controlled has a degree in engineering.
To say, "Hey, that kinda looks like it couldn't have fallen on it's own." is about as much evidence for this conspiracy as me saying that "The sun looks like it moves through the sky." is evidence that it goes around the Earth.
Work a detailed model of the tower and it's damage out, preform a detailed study, then your evidence is worth considering. Unqualified observations are no more acceptable as evidence then sheer conjecture.
[QUOTE=JoeyZ;24808503]Peer pressure.[/QUOTE]
I laughed.
Lol, i think i saw a documentary on that a few days ago
This thread had decent potential. It went downhill fast.
Also a quick thought; if there were explosions in the towers, anyone ever think that there could have been terrorist planted explosives before hand?
Just a thought.
Well then why would they fly the planes
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.