Oh, goodness. Read about WTC 7 in http://www.911myths.com and then re-read your theory.
2007-07-27 09:56:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Interesting speculation, but I do not believe that was the intention of Flight 93. From what I remember of the media fiasco, that flight was meant for another government facility (I vaugely recall the White House as a target being suggested). I love that you're asking questions about the official story, though...
The World Trade Centers were the first in history to collapse after being hit by planes, AND the first to have simply "pancaked" into its foot-print (it happens with planned detonations) after a mere 1-2 hours of burning. (Jet fuel does not do this; if you believe so, you are sorely misinformed.) Also, don't forget that those buildings "free fell" within 9-10 seconds! It's astounding. Re-watch the collapse for yourself and time it.
Another thing: Why was there no internal core still remaining if the floors and supports underneath them HAD burned as the 9/11 Commission asserted? They never considered this in their final report; that core would indistructible if not for explosives that blew it apart into tiny little pieces. (Remember the pile of rubble that remained? Not many large pieces means that they were blown to smithereens.)
Think about it this way: In the Oklahoma City bombing, an actual explosive was involved and still half the building (half the supports and all) still remained. That's how indistructible these buildings are... their total internal structure does not just "collapse" (pancake style, mind you) from fires burning above.
As for WTC 7, watch slow the motion footage of it's collapse. It "caves in" close to the center just as detonated buildings do when they collapse--to "pull " a building, remember, you have to attach explosives to its main supporting core. You can find numerous vidoes of eyewitness testimony who heard the explosions online as well.
2007-07-27 17:48:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Sangria 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
I hadn't heard it before, and I'm surprised, it's not bad as those things go. It helps that it's based on coincidence and supposition, and recycles a theory (controlled demolition) already popular with the truthers.
But what really makes it stand out is that it /doesn't/ possit infallibility by the conspiracy, and leaves the Flight 93 passengers thier hero status for stopping the plane at the cost of thier own lives.
It still doesn't fit the facts - the collapse of WTC 7 was nothing like a controlled demolition, a chunk of one of the towers landed on it, and a plane would have had to fly even lower than the ones that hit the towers to hit it (and those planes were being flown as low as they possibly could) - but, that doesn't really detract from a good conspiracy theory.
2007-07-27 17:13:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
0⤊
4⤋
I don't know if I believe in the conspiracy theory. But what you say is possible. I watch those towers that morning and they were hit by the planes and they didn't fall right away but when it did fall it came down like all together the whole building like someone pull a switch. But then again the terrorist must have known that tower would fall like that or why do it, if it only took out some of the floors and not the whole building. They seem to have been very wise about the building plans.
2007-07-27 16:55:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by margie s 4
·
2⤊
3⤋
LOOK ITS A GREAT IDEA BUT ITS IMPOSSIBLE ....these buildings were hit mid mass and if there were explosives at te base u would see a huge base explosion ...from the base....alot of dust a debris......but i never saw any of that from any footage of the attack....
also the amount of fuel these jets had on them as the crashed into the builddings ran down the insides of the building creating the hug inferno that engulfed them ....the heat alone made the building structure soft and weak as it collaspsed on itself setting of the pull as u want to call it ....
2007-07-28 07:07:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by ben d 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I haven't heard that direct point, but it is plausible to me. What I would like to know is how they got those bombs in the building to pull it if it was so far gone...and you can tell that they HAD to go in the building because of the way that it came down. THAT is not a conspiracy theory either!
2007-07-27 17:12:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Fedup Veteran 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
"Follow the money" was true during Watergate and it's true now.
Listen to how the towers were insured, etc. Also, they stopped looking for bodies after they got all the gold bullion out of the basement. Sadly, Truth is scarier than fiction.
2007-07-27 23:00:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by LuvDylan 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
It may have been brought time prematurely to safeguard the area for rescue workers - better before than during a time when thousands of people were below searching for survivors.
2007-07-27 17:29:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ben 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The cell phone call that ordered them to pull it was recorded.
I heard the recording while in Saudi Arabia. I don't know where to find it on the internet but, the answer to your question is yes.
2007-07-27 21:16:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Dick W 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Now that you bring it up I had not considered it. But I don't think it was meant... They seem to of wanted to make the biggest most eronious lie possible and then get people to sallow it....I do not know the truth either fellow friend but we don't need to know the truth of this. We just gotta agree that we have all been lied to and organize. Its been 6 years without justice and the tyranny is getting worse...its time to stop informing and time to start resisting.
2007-07-27 16:52:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by rustyrale 1
·
2⤊
2⤋
Yes.
Good Imagination, but silly.
The only Conspiracy was that Sandy Berger stole & destroyed classified documents to protect Bill Clinton from the 9/11 Commission Investigation.
Now there's a REAL CONSPIRACY.
2007-07-27 16:53:04
·
answer #11
·
answered by wolf 6
·
4⤊
5⤋