I've never seen This site posted, in all of the 9/11 Discussions, so I just figured I'd throw it out there, for those of you who want to discuss it.
Printable View
I've never seen This site posted, in all of the 9/11 Discussions, so I just figured I'd throw it out there, for those of you who want to discuss it.
Haven't you seen that episode of South Park on 911 conspiracy theories? Remember the ending?
Nice link. I like what it has to say about WTC building 7. I have yet to hear a convincing theory of why it did collapse so symmetrically. Awhile ago I saw a video of some guy saying they demolished the building. I'll see if I can find the video.
I really don't understand why there's so much talk about WTC 7. I swear, on 911 I heard a CNN reporter say that they were going to demolish it because it was damaged. What's so sinister about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Because the story is that it collapsed by fire....and it was on fire when it collapsed.
But who cares? They obviously demolished it, and I don't even know where anyone has said otherwise. And even if they did demolish it, they clearly needed to, because it would have been damaged in the collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
drew you would have to be dumb. First how can you demolish a building perfectly at the last minute because you decide. How could it magically be that damaged out of all the buildings. Why would the media say it collapsed 20 minutes before it did and say it's fallen down when we can see it in the background still standing. It had a lot of evidence in that building you know. Can't get anymore obvious.
Stick your head in the sand a bit more you might find Osama bin laden if he wasn't in the CIA.
luls, no phoenix, they did not decide to demolish a building perfectly at the last minute, that is one demolition that WAS planned, you might want to get some sand out of your own ears.
btw, interesting site, I will take a look at it more later
Ummm....we care because the official story was that the building collapsed by fires. So yes, there are people who say the building collapsed by fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrVnzIUrsqM. And how would they have demolished it when it was on fire, unless it was planned?Quote:
But who cares? They obviously demolished it, and I don't even know where anyone has said otherwise. And even if they did demolish it, they clearly needed to, because it would have been damaged in the collapse.
What exactly are you saying? Are you saying it's a conspiracy or no?Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
Ok, well like I said, it was clearly demolished. I'm not sure why the government keeps changing their story on this. But remember, the collapse happened 7 hours later, which is ample time to set up charges.
So here's my 'conspiracy theory':
-shortly after the twin towers collapse, a municipal official orders the demolition of 7 because he/she thinks it prudent
-the demolition goes as planned, but no one was told that it was happening
- the federal government, in its infinite stupidy, releases a report saying the building collapsed due to damage because they don't know any better
- years later, the federal government (knowing they can't retract their statement) fabricates "evidence" showing that the collapse was due to fire
My motto: Never assume conspiracy when incompetence will do.
I believe that it takes days/weeks/months to rig a building for demolition - especially a building as big as Building 7, and for a pull that was as picture perfect as that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
It only takes days/weeks/months when all the proper red tape is followed. But in my scenario, the incompetence factor also accounts for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
No, it takes days/weeks/months to plan the demolition so that the specific building collapses in its own footprint with as little damage to surrounding buildings as possible. You can't just throw a bunch of bombs inside a building and hope for the best, that's not going to cause a symmetrical downward collapse. Oh, and the building was on fire from the time it was hit with debris to the time it fell.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
So what you're saying is, the building caught fire, burned for 7 hours, and then someone in the government gave the order to blow the charges that were so conveniently placed in the building without anyone noticing them for god knows how many weeks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Im saying that there is no smoking gun either way, and to call someone ignorant if they dont agree with you or even completely change what they were saying, as phoenix was, is flawed. I was simply clarifying for her what Drew said, as she was obviously trying to spin it her own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
That was the point of my post, but to answer your second question, I, at this time, am staying skeptical of it being an all government control plot, but I will mull over evidence when it turns up.
Why do you always have to be so goddamned abrasive all of the time? People might be more interested in what you have to say if you weren't such a bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Yo chill. No need to get worked up about other people's opinions.