OT: 9/11 - many reports of wtc7 collapse BEFORE IT HAPPENS!

[fatrabbit]

One thing I can't help but notice is that most of the conspiracy theorists have terrible trouble with spelling and grammar, and utilize a copious amount of exclamation marks. If you've got a point to say, fair enough, but take the time to write it out properly, otherwise you'll do yourself a disservice.

This is actually one of my little rules - if I get any correspondence that isn't from someone I know (snail mail or e-mail) I will delete it straight away if it - for example - uses more than one exclamation mark.

It's amazing how many people on these sites can't even spell British.

I really don't think there is a conspiracy - News24/World News is error-prone - you just have to watch it for 10 minutes to discover that. This video is great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdyYe7sDlhA

Also, the timings are provided by whoever created that video. There is talk of 'invented reality' by the media (which is always true to some extent) - but have you not thought that whoever made that video also created some sort of 'invented reality'. Are you sure that is the building behind her? I've never been to New York so I have no idea, but i'm willing to bet that many people watched and commented on this video have also never visited New York.

This is not to say that governments aren't and haven't been wrong - what they've done over the last 6 years has in many respects been horrific and mystifying (sudden shift from hunting terrorists to Iraq?), and it's very healthy to question their actions and motivations.

I can't help but think about the Moon landing conspiracy. I came across this brilliant website by an independent scientist that clearly offers rational explanations for the 'evidence' of a conspiracy - such as weird lighting in pictures.

[andydes]

the fact that tower 7 came down is not right. if you think that building came down from a fire you are a complete idiot who deep down does not want to believe that one of his precious fellow americans would do such thing in the name of financial gain and power and control. do you think these tyrants give a shit about the people? have you been paying any attention the last 6 years?

And have you been paying attention to what I wrote?

So I'm a complete idiot who doesn't want to believe his fellow americans would do such a thing? Interesting. Apart from being english, I posted a number of examples of events that point to some kind of government involvement. There's a whole load more.

My point is that these are things that could be followed up on. Clear examples of a cover up at the very least. And you're more likely to convince people by looking into these.

Whereas the demollishion thing is a dead end. It's a theory with no real evidence and no witnesses (of the explosives themselves). There may be a motive, but that's not enough I'm afraid. Maybe that's what did happen, I don't know, but I'm not convinced by what I've seen so far.

No, not fire. Fire and structural damage. I heard different reports on the level of this damage. Some say it was fairly superficial, others that the whole external wall was bowing outward. Who to believe?

I wouldn’t be so sure about what can or can’t cause a building to collapse, structural engineering is based on simplifications and approximations. It’s impossible to factor in everything, especially under circumstances like this.

I'm well aware of what's been happening these last few years, thanks.

Back to this BBC report, fire chiefs had already expressed worries that the building would collapse, hence the descission to PULL the men out. Could the reporter have misunderstood and thought the building had already collasped. This isn't what I'd call concrete evidence (no pun intended).

[forge]

now the BBC has had to make a comment about that video

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

'We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy).'

yes an "intern" went out for coffee and "accidentally" threw it in the bin while being followed by some mysterious men in sunglasses....

I find it amazing really that things like this get so quickl dismissed as "conspiracy"

everyone is just happy to accept the "official word" of who did it and why, but it never really made sense to me

the thing to remember in all this is that the "information" that led us all to believe that it was a few "rag heads" with a grudge that pulled this off was given to us by someone - and there are a lot of links in that chain

the actual people on the actual planes are all dead - so there is no direct testimony

at the end of the day all these explanations of who was actually behind it came from some "government officials" and they are part of the same government who lied their way into Iraq

the mere fact that the neo-cons admitted they needed a new pearl harbour to justify their military build up is the smoking gun IMO

in fact the existance of something called "PNAC - project for the new american century" at all should make it plainly clear this isnt the same isolationist America of old that just wants peace

it's very vary sad, but power has corrupted since humans existed - read a few of the murderous tales of the roman empire

it's a total fantasy to think a nation as powerful as the USA could stay "good ole uncle sam" who only wants what's best for everybody

The Bush admin are just the least concerned with hiding their corruption, and almost even brag about it

Nixon looks like a saint compared to these guys

[glu]

One thing I can't help but notice is that most of the conspiracy theorists have terrible trouble with spelling and grammar, and utilize a copious amount of exclamation marks. If you've got a point to say, fair enough, but take the time to write it out properly, otherwise you'll do yourself a disservice.

One thing I notice on this board is the intolerance of speakers of English (as a second language.)

[NorthernMonkey]

One thing I can't help but notice is that most of the conspiracy theorists have terrible trouble with spelling and grammar, and utilize a copious amount of exclamation marks. If you've got a point to say, fair enough, but take the time to write it out properly, otherwise you'll do yourself a disservice.

One thing I notice on this board is the intolerance of speakers of English (as a second language.)

Really? Can't say I've noticed that - in fact this is one of, if not the most, tolerant forums I've ever been on.

[pilcrow]

One thing I can't help but notice is that most of the conspiracy theorists have terrible trouble with spelling and grammar, and utilize a copious amount of exclamation marks. If you've got a point to say, fair enough, but take the time to write it out properly, otherwise you'll do yourself a disservice.

One thing I notice on this board is the intolerance of speakers of English (as a second language.)

I detected no intolerance, but rather an attempt to educate. I'm with fatrabbit on the exclamation point problem. It's just way! Overused! These days!!!!! Reserve its use for truly exclamatory expressions, and then, use only one. Otherwise you come across sounding like a nine-year-old girl.

Essayist Lewis Thomas had this to say about the exclamation points:

"Exclamation points are the most irritating of all. Look! they say, look at what I just said! How amazing is my thought! It is like being forced to watch someone else's small child jumping up and down crazily in the center of the living room shouting to attract attention. If a sentence really has something of importance to say, something quite remarkable, it doesn't need a mark to point it out. And if it is really, after all, a banal sentence needing more zing, the exclamation point simply emphasizes its banality!"

[jb61264]

now the BBC has had to make a comment about that video

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

'We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy).'

the actual people on the actual planes are all dead - so there is no direct testimony

what about the testimony of the people who were on the planes calling their loved ones...you don't consider that 'direct' testimony?...i guess the 'men in black' could have gone around to all of them and brainwashed them...hey, I heard that JFK was assasinated by the CIA?

What a bunch of rubish all this discussion of 'inside job' is...

[Thinktanx]

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02 ... t-changed/

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02 ... scarecrow/


"If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything."

[dango]

the fact that tower 7 came down is not right. if you think that building came down from a fire you are a complete idiot who deep down does not want to believe that one of his precious fellow americans would do such thing in the name of financial gain and power and control. do you think these tyrants give a shit about the people? have you been paying any attention the last 6 years?

And have you been paying attention to what I wrote?

So I'm a complete idiot who doesn't want to believe his fellow americans would do such a thing? Interesting. Apart from being english, I posted a number of examples of events that point to some kind of government involvement. There's a whole load more.

My point is that these are things that could be followed up on. Clear examples of a cover up at the very least. And you're more likely to convince people by looking into these.

Whereas the demollishion thing is a dead end. It's a theory with no real evidence and no witnesses (of the explosives themselves). There may be a motive, but that's not enough I'm afraid. Maybe that's what did happen, I don't know, but I'm not convinced by what I've seen so far.

No, not fire. Fire and structural damage. I heard different reports on the level of this damage. Some say it was fairly superficial, others that the whole external wall was bowing outward. Who to believe?

I wouldn’t be so sure about what can or can’t cause a building to collapse, structural engineering is based on simplifications and approximations. It’s impossible to factor in everything, especially under circumstances like this.

I'm well aware of what's been happening these last few years, thanks.

Back to this BBC report, fire chiefs had already expressed worries that the building would collapse, hence the descission to PULL the men out. Could the reporter have misunderstood and thought the building had already collasped. This isn't what I'd call concrete evidence (no pun intended).

just curious, do you live in a big city? go find a large 50 story metal frame building and stand next to it. now imagine fire and structural damage bringing it down to a pile of rubble in a perfect beautiful fashion. i live in a 40 story building smaller than wtc7, there is no way this would fall from structural damge and fire, no way. in fact it has never happened in the huge history of building fires except on that day. if fire could bring skyscrapers to their knee's then every building is suspect of a terrible ending, that is not the case. it is our duty as american citizens to question events like this, and like jfk's assasination. you are english maybe your heart is not there, maybe you can question your 7/7 bombings. but me, i want to know why my good friends are seving in Iraq right now. I want the wankers that sent them there to be nailed to the cross.

[The Phat Conductor]

i wouldn'e be surprised if the rigging of explosives had nothign to do with a conspiracy.

check it out:

those buildings are huge right? so if they were structurally compromised by explosives or whatever and they were going to fall down, they would probably fall down sideways and cause even more destruction. they would kill not only the people inside, but also those near the buildings trying to help and those in adjacent buildings.
when you put this together with the insurance motive, and the motive to get rid of the evidence of wall street crimes stored in wtc7 you wouldn't have to be part of a larger conspiracy to bring those buildings down.

i can also see why the US media wouldn't want to report that someone decided to sacrifice all of those people. it's a heavy decision that would be debated forever, and the families would want whoever pushed that button lynched.

just a thought...

[Thinktanx]

just curious, do you live in a big city? go find a large 50 story metal frame building and stand next to it. now imagine fire and structural damage bringing it down to a pile of rubble in a perfect beautiful fashion. i live in a 40 story building smaller than wtc7, there is no way this would fall from structural damge and fire, no way. in fact it has never happened in the huge history of building fires except on that day. if fire could bring skyscrapers to their knee's then every building is suspect of a terrible ending, that is not the case. it is our duty as american citizens to question events like this, and like jfk's assasination. you are english maybe your heart is not there, maybe you can question your 7/7 bombings. but me, i want to know why my good friends are seving in Iraq right now. I want the wankers that sent them there to be nailed to the cross.

Just curious, why does every single structural engineer who has been asked disagree with you? When was the other time in history when a skyscraper was hit by a 757 going 550 mph?

So this is a perfect, beautiful pile of rubble, huh?:





"Sometimes it's hard to get a sense of scale when dealing with the WTC. Fritz Koenig's sculpture "Sphere" is 15 feet in diameter and weighs 22.5 tons. Of all the monumental-sized artwork at the WTC, it was the only piece to survive at all. A hole was smashed in its top, and inside the recovery workers found human remains, an airline seat, a Bible, and papers from the top of WTC 1. The photo at right shows it in Battery Park in 2005. It will be moved back to the WTC when the memorial is complete."

[jamester]

those buildings are huge right? so if they were structurally compromised by explosives or whatever and they were going to fall down, they would probably fall down sideways and cause even more destruction. they would kill not only the people inside, but also those near the buildings trying to help and those in adjacent buildings.

One thing that is true, is that modern tall buildings are actually built so that they will fall in on themselves, not sideways. I'm not saying they were or were not detonated, because I also have a problem with believing that the damage of a single plane and the heat from burning jet fuel, would be enough to topple a building that's made to withstand earthquakes...but I've seen sound architectural reports showing that buildings can be built in such a way as to topple in on themselves, precisely for the reason of not having them go sideways and causing mass destruction to the surrounding area.

[dango]

just curious, do you live in a big city? go find a large 50 story metal frame building and stand next to it. now imagine fire and structural damage bringing it down to a pile of rubble in a perfect beautiful fashion. i live in a 40 story building smaller than wtc7, there is no way this would fall from structural damge and fire, no way. in fact it has never happened in the huge history of building fires except on that day. if fire could bring skyscrapers to their knee's then every building is suspect of a terrible ending, that is not the case. it is our duty as american citizens to question events like this, and like jfk's assasination. you are english maybe your heart is not there, maybe you can question your 7/7 bombings. but me, i want to know why my good friends are seving in Iraq right now. I want the wankers that sent them there to be nailed to the cross.

Just curious, why does every single structural engineer who has been asked disagree with you? When was the other time in history when a skyscraper was hit by a 757 going 550 mph?

So this is a perfect, beautiful pile of rubble, huh?:





"Sometimes it's hard to get a sense of scale when dealing with the WTC. Fritz Koenig's sculpture "Sphere" is 15 feet in diameter and weighs 22.5 tons. Of all the monumental-sized artwork at the WTC, it was the only piece to survive at all. A hole was smashed in its top, and inside the recovery workers found human remains, an airline seat, a Bible, and papers from the top of WTC 1. The photo at right shows it in Battery Park in 2005. It will be moved back to the WTC when the memorial is complete."

the building in question is tower 7 you 8 ball. scroll up to the top of the page and read the title of the thread before you start griping. it was hit by no plane. and yes it fell into a perfect pile of rubble. you probably have not even watched one alternative view movie on 9-11. you just go by what you saw on cnn or mainstream news and make your opinion. i have looked at the official story and have looked at alternative stories, the official story does not add up to me, the alternatives make more sense and seem more plausible.

[dango]

those buildings are huge right? so if they were structurally compromised by explosives or whatever and they were going to fall down, they would probably fall down sideways and cause even more destruction. they would kill not only the people inside, but also those near the buildings trying to help and those in adjacent buildings.

One thing that is true, is that modern tall buildings are actually built so that they will fall in on themselves, not sideways. I'm not saying they were or were not detonated, because I also have a problem with believing that the damage of a single plane and the heat from burning jet fuel, would be enough to topple a building that's made to withstand earthquakes...but I've seen sound architectural reports showing that buildings can be built in such a way as to topple in on themselves, precisely for the reason of not having them go sideways and causing mass destruction to the surrounding area.[/quote

can you please post where you got this information from, i have never heard that. i was under the impression modern building are designed not to collapse. please show original source of info, i am curious.

[The Phat Conductor]

play nice kids.