Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The one thing about 911...

  1. #1
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,896

    The one thing about 911...

    That I have never heard a convincing explanation for is the collapse of Building 7, which was a 40-something story office building in the WTC plaza. It was not hit by an airplane; there were some fires within but these (as far as I understand it) could not have burned hot enough to cause systemic structural failure virtually identical to that which led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Yet the building collapsed into its own footprint, in a way that looked exactly like the deliberate implosion-demolitions used to knock down a building. If you watch video of the collapse of Building 7, it looks like the failure begins uniformly and near the center of the structure - exactly as imploded buildings behave. (This is done to get the mass of the building to cave inward and onto itself so as to contain the subsequent mess/debris and keep from damaging nearby structures.)

    Here's the video of WT7 going down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw


    This is the one thing about the official 911 story that I have trouble accepting. Nothing struck the building (other than some debris from the Twin Towers, which surely could not have been enough to cause a catastrophic failure). Nothing blew off the fire-retardant insulation (thus leaving the structural steel exposed to fire - which in any case was not fueled by jet fuel and could not have gotten hotter than a few hundred degrees and far below the point at which it would have affected the structural integrity of the steel). Bottom line, the steel was protected - so the fire could not have weakened the steel sufficiently to cause a complete structural collapse.

    Maybe the building was dropped - "pulled" in the language of structural demolition (and the exact words used by Larry Silverstein, the guy who just happened to have a lease - and insurance - on the property. See video of that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 ) because the building was deemed ruined and unsafe. But if that's the case, we have something really sinister because (to my knowledge) it takes days if not weeks to prepare a building for controlled implosion. So if WT7 was dropped this way, the preparations had to have been done before the planes hit the Towers - which means knowledge of the coming events was in the possession of our government.

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    That I have never heard a convincing explanation for is the collapse of Building 7, which was a 40-something story office building in the WTC plaza. It was not hit by an airplane; there were some fires within but these (as far as I understand it) could not have burned hot enough to cause systemic structural failure virtually identical to that which led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Yet the building collapsed into its own footprint, in a way that looked exactly like the deliberate implosion-demolitions used to knock down a building. If you watch video of the collapse of Building 7, it looks like the failure begins uniformly and near the center of the structure - exactly as imploded buildings behave. (This is done to get the mass of the building to cave inward and onto itself so as to contain the subsequent mess/debris and keep from damaging nearby structures.)

    Here's the video of WT7 going down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw


    This is the one thing about the official 911 story that I have trouble accepting. Nothing struck the building (other than some debris from the Twin Towers, which surely could not have been enough to cause a catastrophic failure). Nothing blew off the fire-retardant insulation (thus leaving the structural steel exposed to fire - which in any case was not fueled by jet fuel and could not have gotten hotter than a few hundred degrees and far below the point at which it would have affected the structural integrity of the steel). Bottom line, the steel was protected - so the fire could not have weakened the steel sufficiently to cause a complete structural collapse.

    Maybe the building was dropped - "pulled" in the language of structural demolition (and the exact words used by Larry Silverstein, the guy who just happened to have a lease - and insurance - on the property. See video of that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 ) because the building was deemed ruined and unsafe. But if that's the case, we have something really sinister because (to my knowledge) it takes days if not weeks to prepare a building for controlled implosion. So if WT7 was dropped this way, the preparations had to have been done before the planes hit the Towers - which means knowledge of the coming events was in the possession of our government.

    What do you think?
    I don't think the government knew. They wouldn't have let it happen. The debris that fell off the towers would have been significant enough to damage WT7. I think that every American should be required to watch this series of videos at least once a year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-B6c6xxXug ...everyone said "we will never forget" but I think too many have forgotten what the war in Afghanistan is all about.

  3. #3
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric, in part View Post

    This is the one thing about the official 911 story that I have trouble accepting. Nothing struck the building (other than some debris from the Twin Towers, which surely could not have been enough to cause a catastrophic failure). Nothing blew off the fire-retardant insulation (thus leaving the structural steel exposed to fire - which in any case was not fueled by jet fuel and could not have gotten hotter than a few hundred degrees and far below the point at which it would have affected the structural integrity of the steel). Bottom line, the steel was protected - so the fire could not have weakened the steel sufficiently to cause a complete structural collapse.

    What do you think?
    For the doubters, here's another viewpoint that gives some food for further thought.



    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  4. #4
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,896
    "I don't think the government knew."

    I won't say they did; the jury is out -

    They wouldn't have let it happen."

    I don't know about that. On the other hand, we do know for a fact that the government has contemplated similar actions in the past. See, for example, Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods). It was discussed but never implemented. It involved staging attacks on Americans to incite a war frenzy against Cuba. Not a conspiracy theory. A fact. Ergo, we know the government is fully capable of at least contemplating events of this sort. It is not unbelievable or incredible.

    There are numerous other examples of similar such things. Our government is about power - keep that in mind. The government is not there to "protect you" - it is there to maintain itself and its power.

    "The debris that fell off the towers would have been significant enough to damage WT7. "

    Damage, sure. But cause a complete structural collapse? Please explain how that happened.

    " ...everyone said "we will never forget" but I think too many have forgotten what the war in Afghanistan is all about."

    It's about maintaining our control/presence of a strategically important country. "Fighting terror" is a bogey. And it always was.

Similar Threads

  1. The Wikileaks thing...
    By Eric in forum What happened to our liberty?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-05-2010, 08:50 AM
  2. The only thing this guy did wrong...
    By Eric in forum The Maggots...
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-27-2009, 11:12 AM
  3. VW Thing burnout!
    By Eric in forum Classic Car Corner
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-29-2008, 08:09 AM
  4. Amazing Thing
    By Jim Rose in forum Automotive News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 12:54 PM
  5. $38,000 VW Thing....!
    By Eric in forum Classic Car Corner
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2007, 08:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •