Question has already been answered, two huge buildings fell right beside WTC7, when has that ever happened? The circumstantial damage to WTC7 can't be replicated so comparing it to other building fires does not make much sense.
This is the problem w/ conspiracy theorists. They read it, believe it without question, and never bother to see if there are facts that support their wild insinuations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Building http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153
Yup. It's just psychological. Somehow if enough people say the same thing, it's true (like Scientology!). ======= So because it was speculated that McVeigh or his people may have been involved before anything was determined (which is nothing more than a media tactic used to keep viewers watching when there are no new leads to report), that makes it factual that he was somehow involved?? The FBI confirmed within hours bin Laden was responsible. But I guess you non-believers will just hide behind the "that's what they want you to think" defense.
I used to believe this, but it's not true. Things like this can be upsetting, but you don't let it take over your life. Just because someone knows less than me about the world doesn't make him any happier than me. Knowledge is power.
Please explain how hot air does not expand. Also explain how the weakening of the supports due to a fire and the top floors beginning to collapse also do not increase air pressure. Thanks. DD
i dont think its a fair argument to make - to disqualify ones opinion on the basis of how old they were at the time of the event being discussed.
ToyCen posts shallow fluff like the Pentagon bomb theory (and bumps it) but doesn't respond to the evidence that disputes it.
it looks like the windsor building withstood the fire though - they demolished it after the fact. the wikipedia link says that it burned for 24 hours. obviously at that point it was damaged beyond repair and had to come down, but it did withstand the fire itself.
i never, ever heard of anyone in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 'speculating' that mcveigh was responsible. do you have any links to prove this b/c this is news to me - it just sounds like a strawman to be honest. i never heard them talking about anyone other than bin laden. what we did have in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 though was people like cheney and rumsfeld already looking to make the case against iraq. but again, i never heard of anyone mentioning mcveigh, and if there was, that was in no way representative of the overall sentiment at the moment.
Those examples show that fire can weaken steal in a building. Couple that with severe structural damage and we can see that buildings like the twin towers and WTC 7 can collapse.
enlighten me, please! did the building collapse or just a portion? and you cant really compare bld 7 and the windsor tower - the pics of the windsor tower show it totally engulfed in flames and your links said the fires went for almost 24 hours. and despite that the building (most of it) did not collapse. bld 7 certainly didnt burn like that.
The top floors, which were steel, did collapse. The central parts, concrete, did not. A normal fire made a steel structure collapse. This, despite not sustaining massive structural damage to its core from an impact with a large commercial jet, or its fire being further fueled by jet fuel. In addition, the outer walls of the WTC were load bearing, unlike most conventional steel high rises. The point you are missing (intentionally), is that a fire, can, and has made steel structures collapse.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698 Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision Saturday, February 27, 1993 Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass. "We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much." Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center. Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. "However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage." He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics. Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sO1JxpVb2eU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sO1JxpVb2eU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
The fireproofing being blown off by the impact wasn't a factor he considered or that was something that couldn't have been prevented anyway.
A few questions that I'd like to hear people try to answer. I guess it all boils to 9/11 being a day where the worst possible thing that could ever happen, did? Here are the questions: Q: Why were nearly all of “Al Qaeda” Mujahadeen members accused of 9/11 involvement trained in military training facilities in the US, or other facilities connected to the Pentagon? Q: Why did Rumsfeld, 3 months before 9/11, remove the 2-protocol system for scrambling fighters to a single protocol system, requiring his personal approval, and then return it to a 2-protocol system on Sept. 12th, 2001? Why was Rumsfeld not reachable during those critical moments when scrambling authority could have prevented the attacks? Why was Rumsfeld seen helping to carry injured people on the front lawn of the Pentagon, instead of being at his post, ready to grant scrambling authority? Q: Why were many simultaneous training exercises being conducted on that very morning of Sept. 11th, exercises that had nearly all air defenses for the eastern seaboard positioned far away, and why were those exercises structured so that many false radar blips were generated on air traffic control radar screens, thereby creating a great deal of ATC confusion? Q: How was the FBI able to put out a list of all the supposed hijackers within 3 days of Sept. 11th, and why were many of those on that list subsequently found alive, and why were those found alive never removed from the list? Q: Why was nearly all the scrap metal from the demolished buildings immediately shipped off for recycling, instead of keeping it for a thorough criminal investigation, as would be in standard procedure? Q: Why did the white house resist so vehemently against an official 9/11 inquiry, and why was the 9/11 Commission only approved after extreme pressure from a few relatives of 9/11 victims, and why was Henry Kissinger first suggested to head that Commission (who had to be rejected because of extreme conflict of interest), and why were all the main Commission members tightly connected to Oil interests, or connections to countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Q: Why were so many FBI agents told to ignore any anomalies or suspicions they had regarding certain individuals on the FBI list of terror suspects? Why were so many efforts by FBI agents obstructed, such as those by agent Colleen Rowley? Q: Why did John Ashcroft, in August of 2001, have terrorism at the very bottom of his priority list, claiming he didn’t want to hear anything about terrorism, even though there were many attempted warnings coming in from many sources? Q: Why did the 9/11 Commission interview 17 firefighters, but they didn’t interview any of the 22 surviving witnesses, names given to them by the very man (William Rodriguez) who worked at the towers for 20 years, who had the master key to the towers and who personally saved many people on that day? And why did they insist on interviewing Rodriguez behind closed doors, instead of openly for the whole world to hear what was said? Q: Why was only ONE group of people allowed to leave the country immediately after the attacks… the members of the Bin Laden family? Q: Why, instead of getting fired, were so many of the top government and military people involved that day PROMOTED and given even greater responsibilities than what they had before 9/11? If they had committed gross negligence, the very last thing you would do is promote them. If, however, there was indeed a conspiracy, then promotion would be the logical thing to do, since all the players had performed admirably indeed! Q: Why did George Bush announce to everyone that he saw the first plane hit the WTC when there was NEVER a video of the first plane hit? Q: Why did Rumsfeld say flight 93 was shot down? Q: How did this raging fire that took down the tallest building in America, that destroyed 2 indesctructable black boxes... fail to leave a burn mark on this passport that was found at ground zero? more to come......
More to come ....from this site?: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread544077/pg1 This is where you got all those questions from. Don't act like you thought of them yourself. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/about_abovetopsecret.html You are a real loon.
