yup ... indeed ..

Ya. Here it is another pic I have come across that really makes me wonder. And "I am just saying" it makes. Perfect sens to me... anyone else feel the same as I do? Crazy how a pic can put things into perspective.

I am struggling to really find something to Ad. But the pic has left me speachless

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


Heh funny pic. Building 7 really is the smoking gun imo. But even more than that, the fact that 3 buildings all collapsed in on themselves due to fire on the same day... simply not buying it, the odds are astronomically low. It's just so obviously set up I think.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

Heh funny pic. Building 7 really is the smoking gun imo. But even more than that, the fact that 3 buildings all collapsed in on themselves due to fire on the same day... simply not buying it, the odds are astronomically low. It's just so obviously set up I think.

I agree with you 100 percent

It would appear to make no sense (although it apparently does to architecture experts), but then demolishing the building doesn't either. There's no way they could have put the insane amount of charges needed to bring down the tower in place without being noticed. You need to consider this before dismissing the official story.

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


Any links to the investigations of those pictured fires? Would like to see them before I make a response that is wholly uneducated upon mashed together pictures obviously pushing a biased point of view. It would be nice to compare architecture, structural design, source of fire, physical damage to the structure, etc, before saying anything beyond.

Before the brainless gang of people stating a plane never hit any of the buildings pictured, I'd like to say:

World Trade Center 7.

Thanks for the pic, i'll be sharing for sure

reply to post by ownbestenemy


In all honesty, what would be the point? The only steel-framed high-rises to ever collapse allegedly from fire, are the three on 911. You'd have nothing to compare them to.

reply to post by SpearMint


You mean besides the interview where the guy that owned the WTC complex said he made the call to "Pull it"
The insurance policy covering acts of terrorism he took out a month or so before the attacks.

I can't post links from my phone, but it's not hard to find this info.

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by SpearMint

 

You mean besides the interview where the guy that owned the WTC complex said he made the call to "Pull it"
The insurance policy covering acts of terrorism he took out a month or so before the attacks.

I can't post links from my phone, but it's not hard to find this info.

Completely missed my point.

reply to post by SpearMint


It appears I did.

Don't mind me, strep throat, too much nyquil.

I've flagged the post!

But....I can't really add anything, the image says it all!

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


Mandarin orange

"Building 7 is the smoking gun" We see it posted here time after time.

Perhaps if the OS non believers could come up with one single unified theory that covers all the 'unexplained anomolies' they always bring up, then and only then the world may start to consider this as a conspiracy.

But to hang on one aspect that they themselves don't full understand and then claim the entire day was a conspiracy is just plain silly. Using their belief strategies we could consider WW2 to be a big conspiracy. As if it never happened.

reply to post by samkent


The image in the OP should make you question a "Fact", the Fact being wtc7 did actually collapse into a heap with only a few localized fires and a few lumps of debris damage as to the official reason for its collapse.....

now, just by looking at this image you realise that it is physically and scientifically impossible to achieve a total collapse via these means....physics just dictates that!

So, conclusion is, something else caused the collapse other than what we are told......Its only down to logic that makes one question the OS

Why do you have an issue with people questioning problems in the OS?

I don't understand, do you not see a problem with what happened to WTC7 on 9/11?

Originally posted by SpearMint
It would appear to make no sense (although it apparently does to architecture experts), but then demolishing the building doesn't either. There's no way they could have put the insane amount of charges needed to bring down the tower in place without being noticed. You need to consider this before dismissing the official story.

edit on 9-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

www.ae911truth.org...

Search for "911 thermit" brings about a gazillion hits. You simply don't need that much thermit to bring down a building which relies on its steel beams to carry the load.

reply to post by zerozero00

I don't understand, do you not see a problem with what happened to WTC7 on 9/11?

Nope.
Just because others claim 'it looks like other cds' doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. Why would you blindly accept them based on 7 seconds of YT video or the few stills available on the web?

We've all seen a warehouse store with a flat roof catch fire. The roof always caves in. Well the roof becomes the next floor in WTC7. So after many hours of fire . . .

But to claim it was some grand conspiracy without showing any verifiable proof of how the mechanics worked is silly. Where is this verifiable proof? Would you want to be taken to court based on the level of proof that has been presented the past 12 years?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

Any links to the investigations of those pictured fires? Would like to see them before I make a response that is wholly uneducated upon mashed together pictures obviously pushing a biased point of view. It would be nice to compare architecture, structural design, source of fire, physical damage to the structure, etc, before saying anything beyond.

i am sure a simple google search should sufice ? , simply put , thisbuilding fell in 4hrs due to a little fire , also it made history ,as being the only building to fall in such a a way due to a 4 hr fire , "so i have heard"

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

thisbuilding fell in 4hrs due to a little fire , also it made history ,as being the only building to fall in such a a way due to a 4 hr fire , "so i have heard"

Try 7 hours. And it wasn't a little fire. It was totally unfought fires. You can search for pics showing fire in the lower floors. If you lose support in the lower floors guess what happens.

Originally posted by SpearMint
It would appear to make no sense (although it apparently does to architecture experts), but then demolishing the building doesn't either. There's no way they could have put the insane amount of charges needed to bring down the tower in place without being noticed. You need to consider this before dismissing the official story.

edit on 9-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Not according to NIST. They seem to believe it could be achieved by just concentrating on shifting one long beam from its holding plates, nuts, and bolts, something that anyone with access to the blueprints of the building and a devious mindset, would be aware of. Either NIST are right and the building was very vulnerable to such deliberate sabotage, or they were wrong, and it wasn't.