So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?

reply to post by Kang69


All i am saying is that if i was going to plan something like the alleged 9/11 false flag i would have the buildings fall on their sides because i know that would look less suspicious.

thats all and i would think it would be quite obvious

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Well said. You know it's interesting, we have all this evidence of 9/11 being more then meets the eye, and yet, were not really doing anything about it. The only thing that's really happening is people spreading the information on forums and websites like 9/11 architects for example.

I really wonder how many of these false flag attacks it's going to take until the people are finally going to be broken. And maybe that's even part of the plan.

Seriously, 9/11 is so painfully obvious I really wonder if this whole truth movement was created to back another "revolution" to put more pawns in place.

You know this also always reminds me in 1984 where I think it's (Julia?) anyway Orwell describes her as a person that's like a rabbit and the party is like a dog. He then goes on to describe the party as something like the sky, something that is completely unchangeable.

That analogy kind of reminds me of how America is like.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I would think if they wanted to make it less suspicious they would hijack another plane and fly into WTC 7 itself.

Hey, they could even use a military cargo plane that has united air lines painted on it, hook it up like a drone with no pilot, and fly it into WTC 7.

Seriously, wouldn't that be a better idea? Make a military cargo plane into a drone with no pilot, paint United Airlines on it and pass it on as if it was some actual civilian passenger plane?

Hey wait a second...

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

I would think if they wanted to make it less suspicious they would hijack another plane and fly into WTC 7 itself.

Hey, they could even use a military cargo plane that has united air lines painted on it, hook it up like a drone with no pilot, and fly it into WTC 7.

Seriously, wouldn't that be a better idea? Make a military cargo plane into a drone with no pilot, paint United Airlines on it and pass it on as if it was some actual civilian passenger plane?

Hey wait a second...

well yes it would and you just made my point for me.

if they wanted to bring down WTC 7 and they were behind its demise then why not fly another plane into it, they already done it with the other two buildings so why not WTC7?

that is if you believe the government were behind it of course.

reply to post by reeferman


Adding a couple of remote controlled airplanes hitting 2 of the buildings adds to the illusion.

Personally, I don't see how 4 "terrorists" per plane, armed with BOXCUTTERS could take over a plane, let alone 4 of them at them same time almost. If I'm the pilot, I'm not opening the door to the cockpit because a "terrorist" may have his BOXCUTTER at someone's neck.

Worse case scenario-

All 4 planes have bad guys, at least 4 per plane and the bad guys have hostages with BOXCUTTERS at their necks. They decide to use their BOXCUTTERS, maybe killing their hostages if sliced just right. Everyone else on the plane throws up their hands and meekly stands by as "terrorist" menacingly wave their BOXCUTTERS around hollering threats. The bad guys then go to the cockpit and the pilot opens the door for these BOXCUTTER wielding maniacs, who the kill the pilots with these same BOXCUTTERS. They then expertly fly 2 planes into WTC 1 & 2, a third plane makes some acrobatically awesome maneuvers, somehow not crashing into one of the world's largest building's roof, but instead choosing a specific area of the Pentagon, barely skimming above the ground to strike right into the outside wall.

Hang in there, as this is the part where it get's good. The fourth plane taken over with BOXCUTTERS while the meek sheep onboard allowed them to take over the cabin, then proceed up to the cockpit to rest control of the plane away from the crew. The bad guys with BOXCUTTERS then turn the plane around and head back East. At some point over Pennsylvania, these same meek sheep who let the "terrorists" take over the plane with their big, bad, BOXCUTTERS, decided to man up and take back the plane from the BOXCUTTING monsters. They then attacked the BOXCUTTERS suffering several minor cuts , but somehow the plane had a explosion mid-air flipped over, and dove into the ground on purpose. Not sure if the bad guys or the meek, sheep, who became superheroes, crashed Flight 93 into the ground.

Oops! My bad, that's not the "worst case scenario", it's the "Official Story".

reply to post by freedom12

Personally, I don't see how 4 "terrorists" per plane, armed with BOXCUTTERS could take over a plane, let alone 4 of them at them same time almost. If I'm the pilot, I'm not opening the door to the cockpit because a "terrorist" may have his BOXCUTTER at someone's neck.

aircraft security before 9/11 on domestic flights in the US was abysmal, they regularly did not even bother to lock the doors and were trained no to resist. The thought amounts most in aviation security was that planes if taken by terrorists would be used for hostage ransom rather than as missiles. simply put that is why it was seemingly easy for them to take control.

There was some Resistance, flight 93 being a perfect example

reply to post by Alfie1


Those "thumps" are not the same as myself and Ahab were discussing.


We were referring to the tree as it disconnects from the stump and falls over and thumps the ground parallel.


If you were not following along sir, Ahab contend's that " truthers" ignore damage from 1 & 2 as they collapsed, they gouged out 7. I say well researched "truthers" know this and if the building was damaged by the debri or "gouged out", it would have affected the collapse causing it not to fall straight down, but topple over instead .

The "thumps" you are referring to that were recorded on seismograph's and also recorded on a tripod video from across the river, have always been a separate argument. The "thumps" are either what was left of the towers that didn't pulverize mid-air crashing to the ground OR explosives going off.

reply to post by pheonix358

Building 7 was a member of the WTC building union. When it saw 1 & 2 go down it thought for a long while and then decided to go down in sympathy. Buildings 3,4,5 and 6 were mugs and wouldn't toe the union line.

I think it was Sudden Building Collapse Syndrome (SBCS) brought on by stress.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


No, your original "point" was something along the lines of making a building fall down on it's side to make it less suspicious.

But why wouldn't they do that? Because they know people will willingly accept what the government and TV tells them. Take for example the Gulf of Tonkin. People honestly could care less, even though we know for sure it was a false flag. And of course, Operation Northwoods. It can't be much more in your face then Operation Northwoods.

They know they can pass it off as a collapse due to fire because the majority of the population wouldn't question the events, even if it was scientifically impossible, which the collapse of WTC 7 by fire, is.

reply to post by Kang69

No, your original "point" was something along the lines of making a building fall down on it's side to make it less suspicious.

yes if they really did use CD then if they are going to go to all that bother then why not have the building fall in such a way that would not arouse as much suspicion. In fact why even bother with CD, flying planes into the buildings would have had just as much of a desired effect.

they know people will willingly accept what the government and TV tells them

No they're not that is just a myth perpetuated by sites like ATS most people question the government and don't believe everything they read in the MSM, conspiracy theorists just take this healthy skepticism to a extreme.

It can't be much more in your face then Operation Northwoods.

Northwoods means nothing really its just a nice buzz word for the conspiracy theorists. Really if Northwoods was the smoking gun you lot make it out to be then why did the government allow it to be released.

They know they can pass it off as a collapse due to fire because the majority of the population wouldn't question the events, even if it was scientifically impossible, which the collapse of WTC 7 by fire, is.

The very fact that we are having this debate, this same debate that has been going on and on all over the internet and in the media since 9/11 disproves that claim.

As far as "free fall collapse"---in what direction do buildings collapse?

Unlike unrealistic expectations from Hollywood cinema---which show tiny models with cool-looking fiery explosives in them---actual buildings collapse straight down. Always, because they are heavy and that's the direction of gravity. No matter the cause. It's just physics.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Most people question the Government? Then why has every War since WW2 not passed through Congress? Do you seriously believe the majority of the population questions their Government?

Again, a perfect example would be how many people believe the original 9/11 theory of 20 Saudis flying hijacked planes into the Towers. Another example is people on a conspiracy forum still maintaining the idea of the original theory.

And why did the Government allow Operation Northwoods to get open? Gee, maybe because JFK blatantly dismissed it? It's the same thing with MK-ULTRA. Information get's leaked. It's also the same thing today with Wikileaks.

And again, most people don't care about Operation Northwoods, they view the Government as inherently good, it's something that is not part of their reality.

"The very fact that we are having this debate, this same debate that has been going on and on all over the internet and in the media since 9/11 disproves that claim."

You have to be kidding me. How about the Gulf of Tonkin? JFK? USS Liberty? Just because their "old" means that they hold no value anymore?

So if something has been reviewed over a period of time, that means it's not credible anymore?


How about we cut to the basics here.


Explain to me how small office fires can cause a 47 story skyscraper to collapse at free fall speeds.

You do know that this means the building had to lose every critical core column at once, at the EXACT same time. Office fires cannot melt steel. Office fires can not destroy every single critical core column that's reinforced with steel at the exact same time.

This is common sense. You don't even have to take physics to understand this.


Also with your logic of this incredible statement:


"The very fact that we are having this debate, this same debate that has been going on and on all over the internet and in the media since 9/11 disproves that claim."

That means every historical battle in history is false and did not happen. Because guess what, historical battles are still being studied.

So by that logic, because there's still debate on how the battles happened, they're false.

I want you to answer to this. This is some of the most flawed logic I have ever seen in my life.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Just to clarify if you didn't see my edit:


"The very fact that we are having this debate, this same debate that has been going on and on all over the internet and in the media since 9/11 disproves that claim."

With this logic, some historical battles are false and did not happen because some are still being debated on how they happened till this day.

I really want you to reply to this specifically and how building 7 collapses due to small office fires. Seriously, this is mind boggling, and it's actually hurting my psyche.

Originally posted by freedom12

Oops! My bad, that's not the "worst case scenario", it's the "Official Story".

Thats funny.

Now lets take a look at what happens when you put all the truther facts together.

Dave Rogers

Everyone will eventually know that al-Qaeda never existed, acted under the control of the US Government and acted on its own initiative but with the passive complicity of the US Government to hijack planes, not hijack planes and try but fail to hijack planes, that the US Government, a small rogue element within the US Government, and Mossad operating without the knowledge of the US Government crashed the planes into the towers under remote control, crashed different planes into the towers undeer remote control, didn't crash any planes into the towers but projected holograms of the planes crashing into the towers, and didn't crash or project anything but convinced everyone that planes hit the towers by showing it to them on TV, after which the towers were blown up by explosives that made lots of explosions that everybody heard, weakened by thermite silently which explains why nobody heard any explosions, blown up by nuclear weapons in the cellar which started collapses from the top, and turned entirely to dust by energy beams from space which is why there was no debris, and that the debris pile was then kept hot for months by thermite that hadn't reacted when it all reacted to bring the towers down, and all the steel that wasn't there was immediately taken to China which is why the steel recovered shows signs of explosives, melting and dustification, and a plane, a missile, a different plane and a hologram all crashed into the Pentagon except that it was only one of them, or pulled up at the last second and flew over the Pentagon, leaving a neat 12 foot hole that caused 90 feet of the bit of the wall that had recently been reinforced to collapse, and another plane was shot down at Shanksville then landed in Cleveland leaving no wreckage at Shanksville that was spread out over too large an area to be from a crash even though it didn't exist. That's what really happened, and some day everyone will figure out how obvious it all is.

Dave

Please feel free to make any corrections to the above truther evidence that will make it any less baffling.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Kang69

 

All i am saying is that if i was going to plan something like the alleged 9/11 false flag i would have the buildings fall on their sides because i know that would look less suspicious.

thats all and i would think it would be quite obvious

If it were a false flag then I am sure it was considered how much damage it would want to create. The idea I suppose is to create more than enough needed to get the point across, but not so much that you are left more incapacitated than you can bare.

There was quite a push to get Wall st. back up and running if I'm not mistaken.

If the top 20 or so floors actually came down as it would with a completely stable structure directly below it, it would cause severe damage to the area. Sub terrain services would be at risk with the amount of weight that would hit the street if not broken up into smaller bits with powerful explosions.

The real fact of the matter is they would not have been able to make a 747 knock any part of those towers down realistically anyhow. Two planes would have to hit the same tower to make it collapse. Even then I'm not sure. I'm not basing that off of the design tests planning for small engine planes instead of jumbo jets. I am going off of how much AREA inside the building was in contact with the plane. What was left was thousands of lineal feet of cantilevering and leveraging tying that building back onto itself.

Like I said in another thread today, there are no crumple zones in high rise construction. Weight displacement is used all the way up. If you remove any piece of structure the weight re-displaces itself until there is not enough leverage strength. If it should happen that too much structure is damaged to support the weight that relies on it, the weight will shift to damaged sections leaving the stable sections of the structure in tact.


All n all it is my opinion that completely destroying those three buildings beyond repair was not so much necessary to promote war (I'm sure 2 planes, huge fires, and hundreds dead would be more than sufficient) but for some other side purpose. The insurance? The destruction of documents? Who knows. Maybe someone in Silverstein's camp got wind of the plan and they decided to do a little a side op to avoid the months or years of repairs and lost revenues?? I don't know, I'm sure most never will either.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

I would think if they wanted to make it less suspicious they would hijack another plane and fly into WTC 7 itself.

Hey, they could even use a military cargo plane that has united air lines painted on it, hook it up like a drone with no pilot, and fly it into WTC 7.

Seriously, wouldn't that be a better idea? Make a military cargo plane into a drone with no pilot, paint United Airlines on it and pass it on as if it was some actual civilian passenger plane?

Hey wait a second...

well yes it would and you just made my point for me.

if they wanted to bring down WTC 7 and they were behind its demise then why not fly another plane into it, they already done it with the other two buildings so why not WTC7?

that is if you believe the government were behind it of course.

What sort of approach would a pilot get aiming at WTC 7? Could that have been done with 1 and 2 still standing?

Why was 7 picked for destruction is what I am still scratching my head about. They had more than enough shock and awe out of 1 and 2. Why 7? and not even a spectacle. I don't think I even knew about 7 till years later.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I would really love to see someone replicate the act of planting explosives in a building, set the building on fire and let it burn for 6 hours, and then successfully let the explosives go of as planned. That would really be one hell of an accomplishment.

edit on 2-6-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I take it you've not seen the photos of WTC on fire? They were small fires spread out, they could have been strategically started to avoid when the explosives were placed, you didn't think of that did you!

Anyhow, according to NIST the building collapsed due to the failure of one column, so if we are to believe NIST, that a global collapse can occur from one column, then all they had to do was place explosives on just one column, not full rigging needed.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Yes it could have collapsed, but it would not have collapsed so fast and so perfectly like that, that is the whole point of the video, to help you understand how buildings look when the structure is weakened and does collapse.

"How buildings look?" Or how they are constructed?

The damage to the exterior of WTC7 that is supposed to have occurred from debris was nowhere near column 79, the one that NIST claim failed.

So to determine how WTC7 fell they must have analysed all the steel from the building, and NIST should have some photos to show us of this column 79, so we can look at it for ourselves, but I don't ever recall seeing any photos of this damaged column.

Has anyone seen the damaged column?

Surely it exists some where if NIST did a thorough investigation, as they want us to believe.

NIST need to produce more hard evidence to back up their claims!

Has any other high rise building ever collapsed from the failure of just one column?!

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Kang69

 

No all i am doing is pointing out yet another inconsistency in the whole 9/11 conspiracy, if they were going to blow them up then why not have the buildings fall to one side it would have a bigger effect and cause less suspicion. Because as it stands one of the biggest reasons people are suspicious of the official 9/11 story is because of how the buildings fell. I would imagine that if "they" are able to go to the all the trouble of planning out this alleged false flag then they would have had the buildings fall onto one side as it would raise less suspicions after the event.

And yes i have seen CD's where they have the building collapse onto one side deliberately.


EDIT:

No this is not a "straw man" argument it is a perfectly reasonable point to be making.

and yes the "super-shill" is a joke because i got fed up of being accused of being a sill i figured i better just put it in my avatar and save people the time and effort of even bothering to call me a shill. Its called Sarcasm.

edit on 2-6-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

They needed it to fall straight down, they didnt want a large chunk of the building to be left! They needed it to be totally destroyed.

Also, the two buildings either side of WTC7 had no fires, seems odd that they were able to avoid catching fire if WTC7 caught fire so easily, and their exteriors were not as damaged as WTC7, even though I personally dont believe WTC7 was that badly damaged on the exterior for it to have contributed in anyway to the collapse. I think people use misleading pictures to make the damage seem worse, when you cant really tell with all the smoke in the way.

Those buildings either side of WTC7 were not part of the WTC complex, so another reason to have a straight down CD was to preserve as much of the non WTC buildings as possible, imo.