Difficult Facts for 9/11 Skeptics to Deny

Originally posted by LightWorker13
.yet the twin towers, in just a few hours, can be completely demolished.

I think it was 1 hour...

No, it was a few hours. But just a few, maybe 2 or 3 or something along those lines.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 16-6-2007 by ShatteredSkies]

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
No, it was a few hours. But just a few, maybe 2 or 3 or something along those lines.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 16-6-2007 by ShatteredSkies]

I heard it was 1 hour, ill check it out.

On September 11, 2001, the two main towers of the World Trade Center complex were each hit by aircraft as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The south tower (2 WTC) collapsed at 9:59 am, less than an hour after being hit, and the north tower (1 WTC) followed at 10:28 am

The time it took for the towers to collapse makes the official story even more far fetched.


Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by snoopy
The fires were on the inside of the building not on the outside which has the wind to dissipate the heat. Why do you think the people were standing out on the ledges rather than walking down?

But where are the big infernos that the official story refers too ? If their were big infernos like the official story states you would have seen it on the outside of the building.

This is a building with an inferno, and had major structural damage. By the way it did not collapse.

i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

Their have been several other steel buildings that have had bigger fires and more structural damage then any of the WTC buildings and have not collapsed.

According to the firefighters the whole place was a raging inferno and on the verge of collapse. They started creating a collapse zone hours before it collapsed because they knew it could not be saved.

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse
zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire
officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals
indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt." - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro

"It had very heavy fire on
many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our
members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time
and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people." - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro

"Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.
You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." - Hayden

There are over 200 quotes from firemen about the building on the verge of collapse and extensive fires. So while you might take some pictures from early on in the day and claim there were no fires, I am gonna go by the word of the people who were actually there on the scene and were dealing with the fires and rescue.


And what are the names of those steel buildings that suffered worse structural damage than the WTC? I would like to look into that, so if you could list them, that would bhe just great.


As for someone saying that the time it took for the collapses to happen is suspicious, please explain why.

Originally posted by snoopy
[

According to the firefighters the whole place was a raging inferno and on the verge of collapse. They started creating a collapse zone hours before it collapsed because they knew it could not be saved.

Please show me in the photos that building 7 is fully involved in fire as you stated.

i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Please show me in the photos that building 7 is fully involved in fire as you stated.

Some buildings around the towers got it much worst then the WTC7 and yet they remained standing.

Like this for example....

en.wikipedia.org...:September_17_2001.jpg

Ground Zero, New York City, N.Y. (Sept. 17, 2001) -- An aerial view shows only a small portion of the crime scene where the World Trade Center collapsed following the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. Surrounding buildings were heavily damaged by the debris and massive force of the falling twin towers

Notice the building to the left.



[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless

Some buildings around the towers got it much worst then the WTC7 and yet they remained standing.

Like this for example....

upload.wikimedia.org...

Notice the building to the left.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Yes i have showed other buildings with worse fires then the WTC buildings but people want to hang on the the official story. I guess they are too closed minded to eccept any other evidence.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes i have showed other buildings with worse fires then the WTC buildings but people want to hang on the the official story. I guess they are too closed minded to eccept any other evidence.

Then I guess I feel a bit sad.

But you know what, I'm not gonna give up.

Here's some photos that demonstrates what really happened.







And here's a video.



[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless

Then I guess I feel a bit sad.

But you know what, I'm not gonna give up.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Keep up the good work, i wil too.

Every single point in the OP has been debunked. "Gravy" (Mark Roberts) who posts regularly at the JREF forum has written more than a few papers and provides links to everything else. See it here.

forums.randi.org...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...










[edit on 17-6-2007 by Calcas]

I'm still confused as to why the Government would want to attack and destroy the World's economic nerve center and it's very own command center and warroom.

In the end, didn't the US Lose more money than it gained from... well anything that came of it?

If not, I want to see a positive outcome for the government and a powerful enough one that would cause them to viscously kill over 3000 of its own citizens and to very literally stop the Global economy for a few days. So far, I haven't seen anything, what have I been missing? Does anyone know of any good articles that can explain these?

Shattered OUT...

you ask about the motive? well if it was inside its obvious evil. so a classic evil intent is to wage war (like hitler and the reichstag).

2. then again what motive do the terrorists really have? to cause the annihilation of their home countries?

neither side has a rational motive. one has a logical evil motive (inside job), one has an illogical evil motive (terrorism) .. certainly the terrorists would have thought about the consequence of their actions and that the usa would further attack their religion.

either way-- i posted for the following reason--

1. wtc7 thing is inescapable. what could possibly have caused the structure to be so compromised that it imploded? the towers did not strike wtc7 on teh way down. nothing massive enough hit it.

by the current explanation, an arsonist could have brought that building down by starting high temperature fires. yea right.

but with larry silverstein admitting it. its obvious it was brought down by demolitions. theres no way around it. the testimony makes no sense.

almost every other conspiracy can be debunked except this one.

And again, when WTC 7 is mentioned, we only post the pics of the sides AWAY from the towers and do not show the side that was heavily damaged and on fire because of the collapse of WTC 1 into it.

do you have that picture?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Yes i have showed other buildings with worse fires then the WTC buildings but people want to hang on the the official story. I guess they are too closed minded to eccept any other evidence.

Now you are being dishonest again. You have not shown buildings with worse fire, and you are ignoring the fact that there was severe structural damage to the WTC buildings. It's one thing to be skeptical, but trying to mislead people with false information is not in the spirit of these forums. And then to accuse people of being closed minded because they point out the fault in your evidence? No sir, we accept ALL evidence, we just don't beleive in trying to mislead people.

Let's let the quotes keep rolling:

The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. – PAPD P.O. William Connors

"There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.

There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
–FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway


There are literally hundred of these accounts guys. From people, mostly firefighters, who were there on the scene at the time and could see everything. But of course when the testimony is damning, suddenly only a picture is acceptable. if a picture is damning, then suddenly only testimony is acceptable. And who is the one making accusations of denial now?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And again, when WTC 7 is mentioned, we only post the pics of the sides AWAY from the towers and do not show the side that was heavily damaged and on fire because of the collapse of WTC 1 into it.

I have looked everywhere for pictures of fires in the WTC7 other then the ones we already seen and I have not seen any.

The pictures of the fires we have seen is consistent with the amount of smoke it emitted.

Remember, it doesn't take a huge fire to have huge smoke...

Something was totally fishy about 9-11. I saw pictures of the supporting beams at ground zero, there were 45 degree perfectly cut angles in the supporting beams which means there was a controlled demolition involved, beams just don't break clean at a 45 degree angle, debunked that.

Not only that, buildings don't just fall straight down unless professionally demolished. prove me otherwise.

look at the pic below, i mean cmon seriously. explain it.



[edit on 17-6-2007 by RandomThought]

Originally posted by spec2
but with larry silverstein admitting it. its obvious it was brought down by demolitions. theres no way around it. the testimony makes no sense.

almost every other conspiracy can be debunked except this one.

ok, ill give you the short version why this is bunk to start with. silverstein had NO control over what happened at GZ that day, he was in no position to tell anyone to pull anything and the incident commander at the scene not only had no authority to do it there was no logical reason to do it. silverstein was most likely trying to make himself look good by trying to make it appear as though he was more interested in the firefighters than his building and didnt count on us knowing that the firefighters had already been moved out.
if he had ordered the destruction of the building there would be no conspiracy except maybe insurance fraud but he didnt. he didnt have the authority, and the incident commander is not going to send a demolitions crew into a building thats unsafe for even the firefighters while it is still burning to whatever degree.
additionally, for it to have been preplanted explosives, they would have had to know exactly how much damage and where the building would sustain in the collapse of the towers in order to insure that their ordinance wouldnt be damaged as well as the firing circuits.

oh, and theres NO evidence of explosives going off in the magnitude needed to do it as the collapse is initiated

Originally posted by RandomThought
Something was totally fishy about 9-11. I saw pictures of the supporting beams at ground zero, there were 45 degree perfectly cut angles in the supporting beams which means there was a controlled demolition involved, beams just don't break clean at a 45 degree angle, debunked that.

Not only that, buildings don't just fall straight down unless professionally demolished. prove me otherwise.

look at the pic below, i mean cmon seriously. explain it.



[edit on 17-6-2007 by RandomThought]

well if youve ever looked at the closeups of that or any other cut on that scene you'd see the torch tip marks from an oxyacetalyne torch...wheres the confusion there?

or better yet, too much slag for explosive (which wouldnt leave any) and not enough for thermite even if thermite could cut horizontally (which its never been proven it can cut steel of that thickness horizontally)