Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

9/11 - 3 Of the World's most expensive Investment Properties were destroyed, was it..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 9/11 - 3 Of the World's most expensive Investment Properties were destroyed, was it..

    ... Controlled Demolition?

    Was it fire or strategically placed explosives that felled the third tower on 9/11 - the 47th storey WTC 7? According to the official story it was fire that collapsed the skyscraper and home to the CIA. But others are cynical. Fires have never before destroyed a steel skyscraper, and they believe the rubble was shipped offshore before investigators could get to it.

    Watch TV One tonight at 7.30pm.

    Patu
    Be fearless in pursuit of what sets your soul on fire

  • #2
    I have watched the whole internet documentary "loose change" (I think that is what it is called). There is a lot of things that don't make sense, from both sides. There was definitely some sort of cover-up going on but whether it is a conspiracy or just covering for their incompetent, I don't think we will ever know.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the sunday program did a good job with this - they edited the BBC piece well to make it more balanced. They even showed a side by side comparison of WTC 7 with an actual controlled demolition and they were indistinguishable.

      The NZ 911 truth movement is just getting started but they meet in Wellington and Auckland in the CBD on the 11th of every month. You can visit their website here:

      http://911truthaotearoa.myfreeforum.org/

      I think the best documentary for physical evidence is 911 Mysteries which can be seen on google video:

      http://video.google.com/videosearch?...=en&emb=0&aq=f#

      The movie Zero: An Investigation - produced by an Italian member of the european parliament was shown on the history channel on 9/11. You can watch this and many others on google video:

      http://video.google.com/videosearch?...q=2&oq=zero+an+#

      Well done TV one.

      Comment


      • #4
        The eyewitness guy who was in building 7 apparently heard 'explosions' in the building- evidence that it was an inside job. Considering the building was in 'freefall', after the 'demolition job', he must have run faster than a speeding bullet to get out in time. Sounds like a load of old b****ks to me.

        Comment


        • #5
          Sorry.
          All this conspiracy theory is a crock.
          Yes things may have been covered up but the truth remains.

          A aircraft crashed into 2 buildings, intense fire then damaged the internal structure causing it to fail and implode onto itself.

          Comment


          • #6
            And the Moon is made of green cheese.
            "There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says 'yes,' you know he is a crook." Groucho Marx

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by whitt View Post
              Sorry.
              All this conspiracy theory is a crock.
              Yes things may have been covered up but the truth remains.

              A aircraft crashed into 2 buildings, intense fire then damaged the internal structure causing it to fail and implode onto itself.
              that is true Whitt, but no plane flew in to WTC7 and that collapsed!
              "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by GJB68 View Post
                that is true Whitt, but no plane flew in to WTC7 and that collapsed!
                The argument on one side is fire doesn't collapse buildings but on the other side that the debris together with the fire undermined the structure causing it to collapse.

                The symmetry of the fall raises suspicions but they never showed a natural collapse as a comparison (maybe because there never has been one?).

                The biggest criticism of the conspiracy theory is why did no once see the place wired with charges, not even the guy running around the building minutes before collapse. To suggest it was built with charges in the supports goes a bit to far.

                I am far more skeptical re the size of the hole in the pentagon and the confiscation of video footage.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by GJB68 View Post
                  that is true Whitt, but no plane flew in to WTC7 and that collapsed!
                  I'd call that collateral damage - is that unreasonable?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    But the conspiracy theorists never state their theory. What the f8ck is it? The only one that I can come up with is that the CIA knew about the planned attack and that they planted dynamite in the WTC and detonated the charges after the planes hit the buildings. But how could that possibly be done? Answer: It couldn't be done.

                    As for WTC 7, isn't the real story the fact that it was the only other building to collapse?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Green Fish View Post
                      But the conspiracy theorists never state their theory. What the f8ck is it? The only one that I can come up with is that the CIA knew about the planned attack and that they planted dynamite in the WTC and detonated the charges after the planes hit the buildings. But how could that possibly be done? Answer: It couldn't be done.

                      As for WTC 7, isn't the real story the fact that it was the only other building to collapse?

                      Blah blah conspiracy theorists - go back to school and study some basic physics. Maybe do a little research of your own. It's your world this event has effected too mate...

                      Here's a start:

                      From Newtons equations of motion:

                      D (distance) = 1/2 (a(acceleration) x Tsquared(Time))

                      a in this case is acceleration due to gravity = 9.8m/s/s

                      The height of WTC 7 was 200 metres - this means if an apple was dropped from the roof it would hit the ground in about 6.5 seconds in a vacuum.

                      From the official FEMA report the observed collapse time of the buildings was 'between 6 and 7 seconds'.

                      So if we conduct a thought experiment of yourself (perhaps) standing on the buildings' roof and droping an apple over the side as the building began collapsing, both you and the apple would reach the ground AT THE SAME TIME.

                      To spell this out, the 30,000 or so tonnes of steel and concrete underneath you would have offered no resistance to your fall. If that makes sense to you then obviously the laws of physics are different on your planet.

                      It's not necessary to have an alternative theory (or a tinfoil hat) to see the official story makes no sense.

                      I think I can hear Jumpin' coming to debunk Newtons Laws of motion, so I'll now stand aside...
                      Last edited by TonyMacaroni; 01-10-2008, 12:10 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Do you know what happened then Tony? Does anybody?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by outspoken View Post
                          Do you know what happened then Tony? Does anybody?
                          The point is, the US government doesn't seem to want to know. How could I know what happened?? Anyone can speculate on this based on the wars and other events since. I have no doubt however that the multiple official stories can't be true based on some simple science.

                          3000 Americans died on 9/11. Their families deserve an explanation that at least makes sense. These families are the ones leading the push for an independent inquiry.

                          A fairy tale based on butchering the laws of physics and commonsense, and creating boogey men in a cave in Afganistan... NIST, FEMA and the Bush administration need to go back to the drawing board.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TonyMacaroni View Post
                            To spell this out, the 30,000 or so tonnes of steel and concrete underneath you would have offered no resistance to your fall. If that makes sense to you then obviously the laws of physics are different on your planet.
                            What sort of resistance would you expect?
                            How long should it have taken to collapse?
                            Isn't a building a series of floorplates - about 30cm thick - with about 3-4 metres of air and then another floorplate?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bob Kane View Post
                              What sort of resistance would you expect?
                              How long should it have taken to collapse?
                              Isn't a building a series of floorplates - about 30cm thick - with about 3-4 metres of air and then another floorplate?
                              Bob, I'm a little unsure of your question but here goes:

                              These floors are connected to central and peripheral steel columns for support. If they start collapsing onto themselves, energy required to break connections to these columns would slow the descent. Also according to the law of conservation of momentum, energy would be required to then get the mass of the next floor moving. According to this so called pancake theory it would take over a minute to collapse. You would also expect to see 47 floors piled on top of each other at the bottom. What we observe is thousands of tonnes of concrete pulverised into pyroclastic clouds and no discernable floors in the wreckage. The symmetrical nature of collapse also suggests simultaneous and global failure of the entire supporting stucture... from observed asymmetrical damage we get a symmetrical collapse... hmmmm

                              Now, if we assume there was no support provided by structural columns and the floors were in fact floating in thin air, the collapse time would have been closer to 8.5 seconds rather than 6.5 seconds observed. If you would like to see the mathematics of this calculation you can refer to Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttlers' article (WTC 7: A Short Computation) at http://www.journalof911studies.com/.
                              Last edited by TonyMacaroni; 01-10-2008, 07:05 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X