9/11 Third Tower mystery "solved".

[Rroff]

You may have been on some sort of VOIP but I doubt it was vent, unless of course you were also doing some dodgy time travelling.



And the simpler explanation of "a hell of a lot of confusion and quite a few reporters wouldn't be able to tell you what WTC7 looked like if it fell on top of them" didn't occur? Instead we need to work out some sort of impossible demolition mission instead.

It may have been teamsound (defunct) or teamspeak - its a long time ago - everyone tends to refer to most forms of VOIP as vent in the gaming world anyhow.

These were things its a bit hard to get confused over coz you couldn't have known they were happening til they did - it stuck out at the time.

 

[Tefal]

People on here seem to lack common sense. It even quotes enginners saying in the article that tower 7 would not fall down like that - if fires had ripped through the building it would gradually fall down in pieces.

Watch the video on the bbc article - the building falls down all together and has disappeared within 10 seconds. Then if you go watch a controlled explosion on a building it looks exactly the same!

There is absolutely no way that building would fall as symmetrically as it did if fire was the cause!

Ok now go watch a video on how a building is set up for a controlled demolition.

Seriously go do it.

Then come back and tell us how exactly you expect that to be done in a functioning office building.

Do you think no one working there would notice people removing huge chucks of conrete from the support structure, miles worth of cabling being laid everywhere and weeks of noisy drilling into the supports?

 

[Tefal]

It may have been teamsound (defunct) or teamspeak - its a long time ago - everyone tends to refer to most forms of VOIP as vent in the gaming world anyhow.

These were things its a bit hard to get confused over coz you couldn't have known they were happening til they did - it stuck out at the time.

Are you talking about the bbc reporter who didn't know the skyline and said that the tower collapsed ages before it did?


Because she seems an odd person to bring in on the conspiracy, I mean why go the hassle of telling an extra dozen or so journalists the plan when you can just let them report it as it happens..

What is the possible motive or reason for bribing/.threatening all these reporters to report facts before they happen?

Seriously why would they do it?

 

[Rroff]

People on here seem to lack common sense. It even quotes enginners saying in the article that tower 7 would not fall down like that - if fires had ripped through the building it would gradually fall down in pieces.

Watch the video on the bbc article - the building falls down all together and has disappeared within 10 seconds. Then if you go watch a controlled explosion on a building it looks exactly the same!

There is absolutely no way that building would fall as symmetrically as it did if fire was the cause!

I find it incredulous for the whole day - everything went off like a meticulous military drill - not your typical terrorist attack. I'm not gonna start on about how its a conspiracy - the logistics are immense but not insurmountable - but I certainly think its silly to close minded refuse to believe there could be anything but the face value to what happened.

 

[Werewolf]

Ah, but that's part of the conspacy Tefal, they only do that for the TV cameras, in reality all it takes if a couple of guys wearing NY Telecoms outfits, carrying a Makita drill and a few portable radios a weekend to set it up.

 

[cactuscake]

Whilst the conspiracy theories require some blind belief in what the 'experts' tell you about structural integrity, etc; so do the official reports.

I'm still on the fence about this one... hoping that in 50 years or so some more of the initial reports will be released to back up one side or the other.

Can't blame the officials for keeping a few secrets at the moment - if they give a definitive cause for the 9/11 collapses then the statement comes bundled with accountability. I don't think anyone wants to be pointing the finger at the wrong people.

 

[RoachycaL]

Ok now go watch a video on how a building is set up for a controlled demolition.

Seriously go do it.

Then come back and tell us how exactly you expect that to be done in a functioning office building.

Do you think no one working there would notice people removing huge chucks of conrete from the support structure, miles worth of cabling being laid everywhere and weeks of noisy drilling into the supports?

Sorry I'm not here to argue, just add my point and then I'll be off.

Its blatantly obvious like a slap in the face that that building couldn't have fallen as symmetrically as it did by fires inside.

 

[Rroff]

Are you talking about the bbc reporter who didn't know the skyline and said that the tower collapsed ages before it did?


Because she seems an odd person to bring in on the conspiracy, I mean why go the hassle of telling an extra dozen or so journalists the plan when you can just let them report it as it happens..

What is the possible motive or reason for bribing/.threatening all these reporters to report facts before they happen?

Seriously why would they do it?

No but it was several events of that nature - even taking into account the confusion typical of such events they stuck out as several things (specifically todo with ground level events at tower7) couldn't have been known ahead of time unless someone had scripted them.

 

[Tefal]

Sorry I'm not here to argue, just add my point and then I'll be off.

Its blatantly obvious like a slap in the face that that building couldn't have fallen as symmetrically as it did by fires inside.

No trust me when you see a video of how these buildings are rigged for demolition you will realise how blatantly obvious it is that it could not be the case.

seriously go and watch one there's a few good short ones that where on tv years ago (well before this happened) and on the plus side you'll get to see some cool explosions.

 

[nin9abadga]

my prediction is 10 pages or a lock

 

[Tefal]

No but it was several events of that nature - even taking into account the confusion typical of such events they stuck out as several things (specifically todo with ground level events at tower7) couldn't have been known ahead of time unless someone had scripted them.

specifics?

And again why are the press in on it? why have they kept their scilence?

Why tell them in the first place?

 

[Rroff]

Sorry I'm not here to argue, just add my point and then I'll be off.

Its blatantly obvious like a slap in the face that that building couldn't have fallen as symmetrically as it did by fires inside.

I don't see why it couldn't have done... but IMO the chances of a messy collapse massively outweigh the chances of a demolition style pancaking.

Buildings generally are designed to fail gracefully into their own footprint - but I find it hard to believe that in something like a terrorist attack - outside of the normal kinda events considered in the design - all the buildings failed so properly.

 

[Rroff]

specifics?

And again why are the press in on it? why have they kept their scilence?

Why tell them in the first place?

I doubt they were in on it.

If we assume a conspiracy for arguments sake they were probably seeded stories/events to report and someone got their timing slightly out.

 

[Cyanide]

but I certainly think its silly to close minded refuse to believe there could be anything but the face value to what happened.

Errrmmm... you REALLY need to watch the video posted earlier...

 

[RDM]

I find it incredulous for the whole day - everything went off like a meticulous military drill - not your typical terrorist attack.

"Everything"? Even United 93? Their meticulous military drill called for them to crash a plane into a field?

I'm not gonna start on about how its a conspiracy - the logistics are immense but not insurmountable - but I certainly think its silly to close minded refuse to believe there could be anything but the face value to what happened.

If someone offered a reasonable explanation as to why they think it happened otherwise then I might be somewhat more open minded about. But when you have rubbish about controlled demolition, thermite demolition and a missile rather than a plane I start to get a bit bored.

There never really seems to be an explanation for all this either? I mean if the government wanted to have a big event and then blame some terrorists then surely an easier way of doing it would have been a ruddy big bomb instead? It wouldn't require anywhere near as many people to be involved in such a conspiracy and would have exactly the same effect (probably more as you could actually kill more people with it as you could take out the exit routes of the towers).

I can even come up with a couple of conspiracy theories that actually fit all the facts but they just aren't sexy enough for the CT nuts and so they have to embelish and bend and cajoule the facts until they think it says what they want. Hell you still have people talking about "free fall speeds" when common video footage available to almost anyone proves they didn't fall at those speeds. It really does seem that you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to.

 

[Rroff]

Errrmmm... you REALLY need to watch the video posted earlier...

So your telling me there absolutely can't possibly be another explanation?

 

[Glaucus]

People on here seem to lack common sense. It even quotes enginners saying in the article that tower 7 would not fall down like that - if fires had ripped through the building it would gradually fall down in pieces.

!

There are 100's more engineers which can be backed up with education and jobs saying it would fall like that. It was damage and fire. Weekend one spot, which pulled the rest down.

ay that building would fall as symmetrically as it did if fire was the cause!

Where's you evidence for this. It looks similar, it certainly is not the same though. There are many differences. Explosions being one of them.
This is teh same as moon landing conspiracy. You haven't seen anything like that before so say it's imposable. Ignoring the science and just going with your gut feeling which is based on nothing at all.

I don't see why it couldn't have done... but IMO the chances of a messy collapse massively outweigh the chances of a demolition style pancaking.

Buildings generally are designed to fail gracefully into their own footprint - but I find it hard to believe that in something like a terrorist attack - outside of the normal kinda events considered in the design - all the buildings failed so properly.

It to do with the design of the building, the top of the twin tower actually did start to lean out. (it was not deisgend to fall like that, it just happened that's what the design lent towards)

Other steel structures have collapsed. The Madrid tower. Which was built in two parts. Bottom half was steel surrounded in concrete. The 2nd half was similar to wtc. The tower burnt for less time and had no structural damage and the top half collapsed. The bottom half survived due to the different construction method use.d


There is no video evidence for large explosives needed to take out wtc7, The place and size of the explosive has been calculated and the ensuing damage is not seen in any picture or video.

So your telling me there absolutely can't possibly be another explanation?

of course it is possible. But so far No CT has come up with an alternative explanation that actually has any sound evidence or reasoning.

 

[anything I don't mind]

hahha hows you lot, you can't be seriously asking these questions ?

you have not looked into it one bit have ya

either that, or you having a go, trolling

 

[Cyanide]

So your telling me there absolutely can't possibly be another explanation?

Not at all, if someone shows me solid, vaible evidence I'll certainly give it a thought.

You're just making yourself look stupid by saying "stop being close minded" when that's all you're being yourself. Just because someone doesn't agree with a different theory doesn't mean they're close minded. I'd bet we'd all be happy to consider other alternatives if we were given decent evidence rather than hearsay and theories.

It's you who's being close minded for refusing to believe anything other than your own theory.

 

[Tefal]

hahha hows you lot, you can't be seriously asking these questions ?

you have not looked into it one bit have ya

either that, or you having a go, trolling

you?
for not looking at the evidence and realising 110 stories did not freefall. In fact the total time is 40% larger than freefall speed. A mere ~10 stroys where at freefall speed in the middle of the collapse, hardly surprising, when the tower was not rigged up with extremely sensitive equipment to measure moment in minute detail.

You never did answer acid...