Forum menu
i'll ask you again how did it collapse?
Magic?
[i]Houns, wtc 7 was not hit by a plane or even a part of a plane, so i think we can say all fireproofing still in place, i'll ask you again how did it collapse? [/i]
There was a programme on WTC 7, it's been shown a few times. The building was bombarded by falling masonary for hours, one side of it took the brunt of the force of the collapse, there were fires burning in it for hours and the other factor is the way it was built, only one end was properly supported by foundations, the rest was 'overhanging' a subway station so not supported.
This is what makes me think there might be some truth in the controlled explosion theory...
If you don't get the explosives in exactly the right place it doesn't collapse vertically, like this...
[url=
demolition fail![/url]
"The building was bombarded by falling masonary for hours"
No it wasn't, the buildings collapsed in seconds and without any force other than gravity, explain how masonary reaches a building 80mtr away.
And really you think 50 storey buildings get built without foundations?
j-cru it explains everything in the vid i linked in my last post, looks like you over looked that
what a load of bo**ocks. The Americans are dense, annoying and often kill their own people in times of war but come on... there not going to blow up two of their most iconic buildings with hundreds of people in.
You can make evidence fit what the hell you want if you word it carefully
🙄
j-cru - Member
"The building was bombarded by falling masonary for hours"
No it wasn't, the buildings collapsed in seconds and without any force other than gravity, explain how masonary reaches a building 80mtr away.
And really you think 50 storey buildings get built without foundations?
have you not watched the video Houns posted earlier on this thread which shows debris hitting it and the subsequent damage?
I'm all for looking into the truth behind these things but in this case the simplest explanation does seem to be the correct one.
there not going to blow up two of their most iconic buildings with hundreds of people in.
I think you underestimate the power of the darkside 😈
You can make evidence fit what the hell you want if you choose word it carefully
works both ways, if you wanted to sway public opinion in order to support your invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan then you could quite easily make it look like terrorists have attacked your iconic buildings
If "they" are competent enough to plan, execute and cover up this "conspiracy" do you not think they might have thought about what consequence the buildings falling in a "controlled" manner might have had on the publics perception of the attack?
Im 100% with Filth on this.It was a huge set up by the american govt to give them an excuse to go after oil,so they could continue their quest for global domination. There are so many what ifs??, that the Government have declined to explain,and many experts(not who work for the government,surprisingly)that need answering,but know one has. A building of that size does not come down like a chimney stack after a jumbo jets ploughed into it! As a sideline from the main event,they invaded iraq looking for the WOMD,where are they?
I'm going down the pub, I'll leave you with an excerpt from the greatest conspiracy theory of all time, and one which I believe to contain a fair amount of plausable arguements. The zeitgeist movie, the full version is about 2 hours but it beats x-factor if your being forced to watch that.
Here's a bit from it about 9/11...
[url=
This is so frigging daft, I'm tempted to say I can't believe people would think it but really I'm not. People are always choosing an answer they like and trying really hard to make the evidence fit it.
Several problems with the conspiracy theory as I see it:
1) If you wanted to invade a country to get its oil, wouldn't you just invent a spurious claim of WMD say, and then invade it. Why would you start by creating an astonishingly elaborate conspiracy which ended up blaming someone who had no oil at all? If you hadn't noticed, we don't get our oil for free even now.
2) Most of the theories seem based on the assertion that the building wouldn't have fallen over sideways. Right, so every other time the world's tallest skyscraper got hit by a plane it fell over sideways, didn't it? 🙄 You can say 'oh it was designed this way and that' all you like, that doens't guarantee it's going to actually do that in real life, especially as they were designed in the 70s without the aid of computers and whatnot
3) Controlled demolition is carefully planned to avoid damaging neighbouring buildings. If you've already decided to murder thousands of people, why would you give a F about preserving neighbouring buildings?
4) As far as I can tell, this kind of fire in this kind of building has never happened before. So why on earth would anyone pretend to know what the result would look like?
5) Why? I mean seriously - why? The idea is just so utterly ridiculous, really. The govt of any modern country is just hanging on, poking around at policy a bit and then getting voted out. Where tf would they get the wit and resources to create something like this?
6) What's all this crap about saps like me 'believing the mainstream media'? Like we have some kind of state controlled media? Is this China and I hadn't noticed? Get real.
Is there one plausible piece of evidence for conspiracy? Merely saying the buildings would not fall like that is not evidence. I mean explosives residues, det cord or something like that.
Just one plausible piece of evidence please
molgrips,
Have you no problem with the official explanation then? For the record I don,t think either side of the argument gives a definitive explanation, both are easily argued against and you'll easily find 'expert' testimony supporting your choice. And houns I had seen that video before.
Have any of the conspiracy theorists ever given acompelling motive for the "controlled demolition" of building 7? Or is it just because teh gubmint is teh devilz?
Could we save today for a bit of respect for all the dead, both in the USA and the wars afterwards, and leave proving someone is wrong on the internet for another day.
Thanks all.
Have you no problem with the official explanation then?
Is it 'official'?
I saw planes crashing into a building, I saw the buildings burn in a big fire and then collapse some time later more or less in a downward direction. It seems entirely plausible to me that that kind of fire would wreak havoc on plans designed to manage fires started at a single point on a single floor. The buildings could easily collapse downward since of course that's the direction in which gravity acts 🙂 These buildings are a lot bigger than the ones you see on telly being demolished.
the thing that I find troubling about the conspiracy theorists is that they say that they are keeping an open mind, but then they only believe in a conspiracy, and not in what other people tell them.
so they dont have an open mind, just a belief in a conspiracy.
and wise words at last from IanMunro.
I didn't think I was being disrespectful?
The thing with conspiracy theories is that they're self-perpetuating. No matter what the evidence offered up to disprove it, the conspiracy theorists immediately proclaim that's it's all designed to hide the orginal conspiracy.
If you discuss the theories openly, it gives credibility to them, more people become aware of them and get confused by the different angles being offered and you're in a worse mess than before.
If you don't discuss the theories, it's because you're scared by the "truth" so the conspiracy theory gains credibility.
Bit like trying to discuss religion really...
The attack on the pentagon is the one that is most mysterious to me. No visible plane wreckage, a small entry hole on the building no wing slice like the towers attacks. The possibility of a missile seems remotely possible, but if it were then was the flight ficticious?
"anyway I like conspiracy theorys"
Hmm, so do I I'd go as far as to say I collect them amongst other memes and artifacts of contemporary folklore, However I also like and collect films and books, it doesn't necessarily mean I accept them as fact or in anyway plausible.
The fact that the more people watch and are aware of for example "The Italian Job" or "Harry Potter" than were aware of them ten years ago, Doesn't suddenly make them true or any more plausible.
m6 i caught the programe ont telly box about that one and it does seem a bit odd.
My carbon Zaskar was built to support my weight, after riding it for a while it developed a crack. The only plausble solution for this is nano thermite, planted by the government, to stop me buying imported carbon frames.
Not really the best day for this crap.
I watched the footage many times and the day is burned in my memory (The JFK moment for our generation).
For me, if Bush can't plan an occupation of Iraq then I don't think for one moment his cronies could execute this as a conspiracy.
This was a horrible event and as said before the simplest explanation is also the most credible.
My thoughts go to those who lost their lives on this day and in the days (and countries) caused by this event.
No visible plane wreckage, a small entry hole on the building no wing slice like the towers attacks
Yeah but when was the last time a plane crashed into a low rise building built the exact same way as the pentagon at almost ground level? What happened then?
Although you might [b]expect[/b] it to go a certain way, you've really no idea since all you've seen is a few pics. Not really any grounds to base a conspiracy on is it?
My thoughts go to those who lost their lives on this day and in the days (and countries) caused by this event.
+1, well put.
I wouldn't put it past them the crazy bastards...
How do we know that they are crazy bastards..?
Because we have watched around 40 years of hollywood movies that portray them as such... thus proving that the conspiracy is all an elaborate triple bluff as they have been conditioning us to believe it for so long that we now disbelieve it.. Reverse psychology on a global scale..
simples
Yeah - lets quash all these conspiracy theories. We know there were hijackers on the plane because according to ABC News and the Associated Press, the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami was found a few blocks from the WTC. They should like you know, build cycle helmets out of whatever that passport was made of 🙂
Just one plausible piece of evidence please
Every single scrap of debris was removed from the scene and was never examined by any investigators. They were given selected sample of debris to examine later.
By the same token, there is no evidence that the 'planes caused the collapse. Only theory. Plenty of reputable.
scientists and engineers have rejected the claims of the official investigation. Seismic readings showed 'spikes' just prior to the collapse of the buildings, suggesting explosions. Eye witnesses have spoken of hearing explosions. Demolition experts have been adamant the buildings were brought down by controlled explosion.
You don't think the US administration at the time was capable and willing to commit such an act?
Really?
[img] 
[/img]
The WTC were designed as tubes rather than what's done typically now with an rc central core and steelwork braced from it. There's been lot of research carried out on the collapse by structural engineers - it's not hard to find how and why they collapsed.
"They should like you know, build cycle helmets out of whatever that passport was made of "
Or black box flight recorders. 🙂
There really are some nutters on STW these days. I thought we were an educated bunch and just argued on religion and whether Gordon's a moron or Gideons a gambler. This 911 stuff is really a surprise, as a chemist, and as someone who has heated many a steel thing in a fire, nothing that happened on that tragic day needed any extra "stuff".
....that said. Don't get me started on David Kelly.
.
Am I meant to believe that someone went to all the trouble of a conspiracy involving flying hijacked planes in to a number of different targets then blew up the building with a controlled explosion. Now if i was at the planning meeting the first thing I would have said is can we blow it up and make it look like we have not blown it up and make it look like it just fell over. I assume this is far easier than a controlled explosion. Cant beleive they managed to plan all this and overlook this point.
"This 911 stuff is really a surprise, as a chemist, and as someone who has heated many a steel thing in a fire, nothing that happened on that tragic day needed any extra "stuff"."
Steel thing in a fire, whoa spare me your technical mumbo jumbo, and give me it in laymans terms. I realise now how this argument hasn't been settled, they didn't consult a chemist.
People will be saying the moon landings were faked next.
j-cru...sorry for my NVQ4+ technobabble.....
ok here goes.
Big flying petrol can hits big metal and man-rock thing.
Petrol make metal bendy bendy hot hot....no no touchy.
Metal bend a bit.
man rock fall.
Bad bad things happen.
Now lets stop this crap and go to bed.
Quitter, I'm nightshift BTW
simonralli and other loons to the forum please....
😉
People will be saying the moon landings were faked next.
Don't get me started on the moon landings 😆 actually I couldn't care less about the moon landings, they were before my time but the're a few interesting theorys about.
Back on topic it amazes me the amount of people on here that blindly believe the official line on the 9/11 attacks, clearly the investigations were full of holes and hence the reason the conspiracy theorys started in the first place.
You don't have to believe them, just feel free to question everything that you see in the media. I tend to take everyhting with a big pinch of salt but I hear more plausable arguements from the conspiracy theorists than the official reports which are clearly aimed at non technical folk.
I've studied quite a few controlled explosions and what happened that day was not caused by a plane strike, just my opinion of course but quite a few of my fellow structural engineers agree.
clearly the investigations were full of holes and hence the reason the conspiracy theorys started in the first place.
Really? Such as?
What I have seen was quite plausible, well worked out by people who understand such things and no obvious holes
I've studied quite a few controlled explosions and what happened that day was not caused by a plane strike, just my opinion of course but quite a few of my fellow structural engineers agree.
And how many plane strikes on buildings of that type have you seen? 100 tonnes of high octane fuel involved
Lets see a quote from a reputable engineer who agrees with you.
It's been said many time on this thread it was the heat from the fire that caused the collapse, not the impact (but that didn't help). It seems you just want to believe what you want, not the most reasonable, logical explanation.
Weve already established that you are MIB TJ 8) 😆
I see your still trying to distract folks from the truth, have a watch of the Zeitgeist movie, there's quite a few credible sources in it.
I still can't find the really good article by one of the american engineering institutes, where have you hid it?
I'm off to bed before TJ comes round to try and erase my brain and I'm far too pished to be looking for credible sources at this time on a Saturday night.
Chill folks it's just a theory after all, you can choose to believe it or not.