English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Including Tower 7-

2006-09-21 05:43:01 · 22 answers · asked by Kain 5 in Politics & Government Military

Excuse me I meant to add "CONTROLLED demolitions.

2006-09-21 05:43:30 · update #1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63un5d_xcC0

2006-09-21 05:54:11 · update #2

YOU guys who think no are all morons-
Read up on the subject watch some documentaries first before you answer-
I have watched actual footage of a construction crew near tower 7 who were caught on video tape and audio saying "tower 7 will be coming down soon"
25 minutes before any of the towers fell.
Why did tower 7 fall? There was no debris that hit it, and if you watch the video of it falling its typical of other buildings you can see the top center collapse in on itself..
So, again I say all of you are morons. You want to believe that the American government is watching out for you but in reality we are all just puppets and pawns, who will never know the truth, but I know the truth.

2006-09-21 10:00:31 · update #3

22 answers

common sense says YES.

tower 7 was 'pulled' but i like to know how they pulled a building in a way such as it was in less than 8 hours.

i know this because i worked in demolision.

folks who believe a jet or two took these big bad *** buildings down with an inner core....

should get educated real fast.

most of the fuel flash burned on impact, learn about jet crashes and implosions also while you're at it folks.

i can't believe folks actually fell for this crap.

there's more to the attacks on sept 11 than i guess we'll ever get to hear about.

ask why there was no jet and no jet collision evidence at the pentagon while you're at it?

or highway suvellance footage?

where did all that stuff go?

folks should watch the raw first broadcast footage again.

instead of the filtered and edited crap.

whatever, it's gone now, 'whomever' was really involved with this got away with murder, money and if there's really a god.... well these people will get their upcommings.. i hope i live to see it.

:D

2006-09-21 05:53:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 7

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt floors sagged pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

With the fire proofing blown off, the fire only needed as little as 600 degrees C to deform the naked truss steel.

Conspiracy theorists blame the Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did and continue to do so. The most incompetent presidency in the history of the US covered up the largest mass murder in US history... the numbers who would've been in on the scam are incalculable...

EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries.

The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.

The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorist say is impossible is possible.

Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...

2006-09-21 06:10:21 · answer #2 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 2 0

the first aspect you should understand about the plane that were used is they'd a present day administration gadget it truly is called "fly- by making use of-cord". computers guard aspect flight till you position rigidity on the joystick or yoke. Microsoft Flight Simulator teaches you a thanks to apply the administration structures in those plane. Even automobile-pilot controls are coated interior the manuel. The terrorists did certainly have this style of manuels and had obviously practiced in this application. The day it occured I speculated that they'd achieved this and changed into shown acceptable. As for the fireplace, there is distinct distinct fabric in a progression like the international commerce center. no longer all the fireplace changed into burning in a unmarried region. There must be distinct temperatures in distinct parts of the progression so smoke ought to indedd be produced. to assert all the gasoline flashed off on impact merely isn't authentic. The gasoline contributed a great deal to the fireplace and the terrorists knew it ought to. Why do you imagine they chosen planes which could be completely fueled? metallic would not desire to be melting to fail. I have considered the end results of straightforward progression fires and metallic distorts, bends, and cracks with out melting. the burden of the shape above changed into in reality brought to some thing of the progression at the same time as the few bolts that extremely held the framing jointly failed.

2016-11-23 13:08:54 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

No, I don't. I believe what I saw with my own eyes in live TV coverage, and what my friends in NYC saw from their own rooftop half a mile away.

The towers collapsed FROM THE TOP DOWN, because the damaged structures failed due to the heat generated by the huge fires. That's why the collapses began at the points where the fires occurred! NOT at the ground!

That's what I saw, what millions saw, and what ten of thousands of decent, honest New Yorkers saw and suffered with in their nightmares.

What happened to tower 7 is irrelevant to me. The place was evacuated long before it collapsed.The structure was so badly damaged by the falling towers that it was a threat to rescue workers who needed to get in close to search for survivors. If it was collapsed by controlled demolition that bears no relation to the fact the the twin towers were hit by passenger planes full of innocent people, flown by murderers!

Any suggestion that somehow, people got up into those towers with around ten tonnes of demolitions materials - to the exact floor where the planes hit and where the collapses started -- is totally absurd and denies what is plain to see on any of the many videos available.

Bless all you people in NYC (and the other places of 9/11), and the families of all those who suffered. How you put up with this heartless conspiracy stuff just amazes me. But one thing I have to say: You all have a right to express your opinions, however much they differ. And that should be everyone's right, everywhere -- without fear of being cursed, shot, persected or imprisoned.

Hold on to your values!

Lenky.

2006-09-21 05:59:43 · answer #4 · answered by Lenky 4 · 1 1

As much as i love jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, it seems very improbable that there would be controled demolitions in this case. First of all the tower started collapseing from the top, that would mean someone would have had to put said explosives up there, in a burning building, with people evacuating. Another thing, what would be the purpose, or motive of controled explosives. If someone was tryin to make a point, a plane is a building is just as good, if not a better way to make it.

2006-09-21 05:54:44 · answer #5 · answered by nezticle 2 · 1 1

Nope.
Too many holes in the "controlled demo" theory...

1-Fire would not have melted the steel
Moot. The steel didn't have to "melt" it only had to lose it's structural integrity.

2-Jet fuel wouldn't burn for hours, it would vaporize on impact.
Wrong. Jet fuel is like heavy diesel, it wouldn't vaporize like a more volatile fuel like automotive gasoline. In addition, keep in mind that the planes crashed into buildings, not open fields. The fuel had no where to disperse. Look up the eyewitness accounts of burning fuel cascading down the WTC elevator shafts.

3-The building fell "at the speed of gravity"
One of my favorites...At what speed SHOULD it have fallen? Some see this as proof that the buildings were blown up from below. Anyone who watched the news that day could clearly see that the lower floors crumbled as the upper floors came down upon them.

4-The WTC owner ordered the building to be "pulled."
Another favorite. The video that some call a "confession" is nothing more than WTC owner Larry Silverstein saying that he agreed that the firefighters should be "pulled" out so that they would not be trapped like those already killed in WTC1 & 2.

5-It is impossible for the buildings to have fallen straight down into their own "footprint."
Another supposition from those who probably never saw any real footage. First, the buildings collapsed straight down because that is what they are designed to do. Anyone who remembers the last big earthquakes in California will remember images of freeway overpasses that collapsed straight down. All modern buildings are engineered to do this in order to limit the field of damage. Second, the collapse was hardly as "clean" as some claim. Implosion implies that the building collapsed "into" itself. Anyone who saw the footage remembers the upper floors collapsing and a large amount of debris blowing outward. Ironically, some people make the incongruous argument that the sight of debris blowing outward is PROOF of implosion.

6-In my own experience, I know that it takes several weeks for engineers to isolate the proper locations to place explosives and implode a 12-story building. Taking down the WTC with explosives would've taken hundreds, possibly thousands of charges planted throughout the structure without a single occupant noticing.

7-Youtube.com and similar video sites have been proven to be a refuge for aspiring filmmakers and publicity-starved high schoolers passing off fiction for reality.

8-There are more, but I'm tired and this topic is worn itself out...

Believe what you choose to believe, but ask yourself this "Why is it so important for me to believe in this way?

2006-09-21 06:34:36 · answer #6 · answered by a_man_could_stand 6 · 2 0

No, abolutely not. It is truely sad that there are so many foolish claims of a conspiracy out there.

Can you conspiracy nuts explain how the explosives were placed on the floors where the collapse occured ? How was it done without the occupants of those offices noticing? How did those explosive survive the impact of the aircraft and the subsequent fires?

Secondly, given government employees LOVE of leaking information, how has the information NOT leaked out and been covered by any of the media ?

2006-09-21 06:13:34 · answer #7 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1 1

I don't know about Tower 7, but steel fails at 1,000 degrees and aviation fuel burns at 2,000. The fire resistive cladding on the steel girders was knocked off by the impact so it is entirely plausible that the collapse was due to failing steel in that heat, as is generally accepted. Plus, the pancake collapse is what would have happened naturally once a floor let go.

2006-09-21 05:48:04 · answer #8 · answered by All hat 7 · 7 1

Yes I do but then again I also believe that the Levies were blown up in New Orleans Kennedy assasination was ordered by LBJ the moon landing was a fake and Elvis is still alive. No one has prove me wrong yet.

2006-09-21 07:50:25 · answer #9 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0 1

Dummy, demolitions would have been detonated prematurely when those fully fueled jet planes crashed into them and started burning at 2000 degrees.

2006-09-21 05:50:48 · answer #10 · answered by medic 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers