Tenth Anniversary

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by wihosa, Aug 11, 2011.

  1. wihosa
    Offline

    wihosa VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,497
    Thanks Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +259
    It's been tens years and we've all come to accept as fact the story of Muslim extremists pulling off the worst terrorist plot in history. These same "master minds" now can't even blow up their own underwear. Makes one wonder how they were able to be so "succesful" on 9-11.

    If it smells like I'm talking conspiracy here, let me assure you, I AM!

    Save you tin foil hat comments, I didn't come to this position easily. I have wound up here because it is the only way to explain the facts.

    Oh, you think you know the facts? OK, let's start with this one. I stumbled upon it about a year and a half ago and have been researching it ever since. Question: How many office towers collapsed into their own footprint on 9-11? Answer: THREE!
    More than 6 hours after the twin towers had collapsed, Building 7, a conventionally built steel frame forty seven story office tower collapsed completely in seconds into it's own footprint.

    Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, it only had superficial damage caused by falling debris from the twin towers. There was a moderate office fire of mysterious origin which firemen stopped fighting because somehow it was known that Building 7 would collapse.

    This is the first time in the history of steel frame structures that one has completely collapsed into it's own footprint, except by controlled demolition. Even office towers which were completely involved in flames have not collapsed, only Building 7 which only had moderate fires on limited floors.

    There is an orgnization called AE911 Truth, it is made up of over one thousand Registered Architechs and Engineers who have disputed the official story and are asking for a real investigation with subpoena power.

    I won't try to convince those who refuse to see, I can't make you open your eyes. But if you have the courage of you conviction I suggest you Google 'Building 7' and watch the video of Building 7 collapsing. There are several views, take a look and see if you think this looks like the result of accident or careful planning.

    After having researched this extensivley I can say without doubt that Building 7 was no accident, and by extension the Twin Towers destruction was not the result of a "Lucky Strike" by Al Queda.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. BlindBoo
    Offline

    BlindBoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    19,590
    Thanks Received:
    2,194
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,389
    Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, it only had superficial damage caused by falling debris from the twin towers.

    WTC7 Damage


    Captain Chris Boyle
    Engine 94 - 18 years

    Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

    Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

    Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

    Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

    Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    many unanswered questins remain.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    Have you met EOTS?

    He will agree with everything you say. No matter how few "facts" you have. And I'm sure he will share with you ten fold the number of "facts" you have.


    Your continued idiocy is a blight on America.
     
  5. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,872
    Thanks Received:
    2,070
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    That building had been burning all day long. And it did not just have "superficial damage", it had a huge hole on the one side from debris coming for the main two towers. Obviously it sustained major structural damage.

    What is the conspriacy theory anyway? The evil US government wanted to blow up an empty building 7?
     
  6. wihosa
    Offline

    wihosa VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,497
    Thanks Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +259
    So you have not done as I suggested and bothered to look at the many views of Building 7 collapsing. You also have obviously not bothered to check out the AE911 Truth website, what could over one thousand registered Architechs and Engineers possibly know about the difference between superficial damage and major structural damage.

    Who was involved in the conspiracy? Very good question. Were people in our government involved? Most likely. How will we ever know? By having a real investigation in which the investigators have subpoena power (the power to compel people under oath to answer questions), which was never done during the original 911 hearings.
     
  7. wihosa
    Offline

    wihosa VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,497
    Thanks Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +259
    Yes and there is only one way to answer them, a new investigation, this time with those questioned being put under oath.
     
  8. wihosa
    Offline

    wihosa VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,497
    Thanks Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +259
    OK, I've seen all this before and so have over one thousand Architechs and Engineers at AE911 Truth. The damage seen in these videos IS superficial damage, at most only a couple of the multitude of load bearing columns were damaged. The exterior walls of steel frame buildings are called "curtain walls" because the only purpose is to enclose the structure like a curtain, so regardless of the fact that these glass curtain walls were damaged to the height of the eighteenth floor, the building had only minor structural damage. There have been documented fires in steel frame office towers before, many which were more "involved" and which burned for much longer times yet never ended in the total collapse of the building.

    I've also seen the "debunkers" trying desperately to explain away the obvious - this is the first documented occurence of a steel frame building totally collapsing at free fall speeds into it's own footprint other than by controlled demolition.

    Engineers call it an impossibility.
     
  9. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    41,961
    Thanks Received:
    6,099
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +19,883
    If its a conspiracy, put it in the conspiracy section nutcase. Placing it here doesn't add credibility to your lack of understanding in physics and the rest of science.

    Mods? Cleanup on aisle three please.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2011
  10. wihosa
    Offline

    wihosa VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,497
    Thanks Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +259
    No, it's a demand for a real investigation. No one was ever put under oath in connection with the greatest national security failure in our history, and you want to pretend that I'm in the tin foil hat crowd. Makes me think you're afraid of what might be found out.
     

Share This Page