Controlled Demolition of tower seven (9/11)

[matt_vtr_15a]

hmmmmmm why?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7485331.stm


discuss

[DUFC]

Of course it was controlled, what building do you know that just falls down?

[MuZiZZle]

Of course it was controlled, what building do you know that just falls down?

the other two?

[Jungle]

Tupac did it

[blackie_2k5]

Tupac did it

Ali g's dog?

[matt_vtr_15a]

haha it's an old article... just saw it whilst clearing out my inbox and hoped it may spark some kind of mini thread war....


However definately was controlled for tower 7...

it's the only sky scraper ever to fall from fire alone...

[Jungle]

haha it's an old article... just saw it whilst clearing out my inbox and hoped it may spark some kind of mini thread war....


However definately was controlled for tower 7...

it's the only sky scraper ever to fall from fire alone...

I hope that's not all you have, that is a very weak argument.

[holdawayt]

It was da American government I knw it cuz I wotched loose change on YouTube.

[Brettles1986]

I'm no conspiracy theorist but if the government had something to do with the original attacks and it was mainly government organisations in tower 7 then they would want to do something to cover their tracks and that seems like the ideal thing to do.

war started

[holdawayt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_fFkLcRrBE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[MuZiZZle]

so if the 3rd one was a controlled explosion, why were the charges in place?

[matt_vtr_15a]

I hope that's not all you have, that is a very weak argument.

Not at all...

My mum works for the company that manufactured and supplied the fire protection to the twin towers and even tower 7...

The fire protection was literally obliterated the second the jet smashed into the towers as it was never designed (from a fire perspective) for such a scenario...

Tower 7 though was not hit by anything but debris such as dust, materials from the falling trade centres over 100metres away nothing that would of affected the structural steel or associated fire protection...

it dropped straight to the ground, didn't collapse in any direction but downwards and into it's own footprint...

Why would it do that? I was very suspect about that, I can understand the twin towers falling due to the impact it suffered and explosion from the aircraft, initial damage to the structure and insane temperatures due to the fuel and explosion from the aircraft..

Flying debris that hit tower 7 would cause cosmetic damage to a building it wouldn't reduce the structural performance of a building to that degree...

The skyscraper would more than likely be burned down with the structural frame of the building being exposed and still standing if anything...

The temperatures of the fire would of been nothing like that of the twin towers....

[Jay_]

so if the 3rd one was a controlled explosion, why were the charges in place?

BECAUSE ThE GOVERNMENT DID IT ALL!

[matt_vtr_15a]

BECAUSE ThE GOVERNMENT DID IT ALL!

not even any white text..


SERIOUS

[Bean]

I'm no conspiracy theorist but if the government had something to do with the original attacks and it was mainly government organisations in tower 7 then they would want to do something to cover their tracks and that seems like the ideal thing to do.

war started

That theory is just retarded! Why would the government want to claim so many innocent lives? It was a terrorist attack plotted by al-Qeada not a government terrorist attack

i bit

[holdawayt]

Personally I hate these conspiracies and most of you know I do my best to disprove them.

But I must admit I can't accept the official story for WTC7. Everything else I can give a reasonable explanation for. But not WTC7. Looking forward to seeing the results.

[rey]

Can't remember where I saw it, but the debris caused more than 'cosmetic' damage.

I believe it might have actually been the report in that link.

[Jay_]

not even any white text..


SERIOUS

I was hoping that people didn't need white text tbh!

[MuZiZZle]

I get that a plane could blast all of the fire protection off the steel, and aviation fuel fire could weaken it, hence the twin towers falling

but the other tower must have had something naughty in it if it was a controlled explosion, for that kind of timeframe, and that much media on the ground, my money would be on the building being pre rigged?

[Bean]

I get that a plane could blast all of the fire protection off the steel, and aviation fuel fire could weaken it, hence the twin towers falling

but the other tower must have had something naughty in it if it was a controlled explosion, for that kind of timeframe, and that much media on the ground, my money would be on the building being pre rigged?

Why would they pre rig it if they had no idea that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the first two towers? It's not phesable

[Jay_]

Maybe it was always rigged, the govt were planning their own attack, but then the terrorists got there first so they thought "FUCK IT lets do it now!"

Lol.

[matt_vtr_15a]

Can't remember where I saw it, but the debris caused more than 'cosmetic' damage.

I believe it might have actually been the report in that link.

Okay I'm glad someone said that...


So even if the debris did cause damage to the structure...

one face of the WTC 7 building was most exposed...

This would of cause the building to be particularly weakened to one of the four elevations of the building...

This would be the weak point and cause the building to fall in a particular direction, not straight down.... surely?

WTC 7 would not of fell into it's own footprint if one side of the building was a lot more damaged structurally than any another side...

It would of 'toppled' over rather than fell into itself...

[Bean]

Maybe it was always rigged, the govt were planning their own attack, but then the terrorists got there first so they thought "FUCK IT lets do it now!"

Lol.

The government didn't plan shit! I know they try to screw is over but never in that way lol

[holdawayt]

It did have one central support structure rather than a normal building having quite a few.

So if the central column was knocked out then yeah it would make sense. But I reallly don't know what to think.


90% confident that it wasn't pre rigged. With the amount of people coming in and out of those buildings every day someone would've noticed them. Same with the twin towers, if people believe that they were brought down with explosions then A. How on earth did they get them rigged up without people seing? B. why would you then fly a plane into them? Surely you'd just blame it on terrorist bombs.

C. Why blame Afghanistan for all of this, but then place Saudi's in the planes. If you wanted to go over to Afghanistan for their oil you'd put Afghani's in the planes.

[holdawayt]

As my video pointed out earlier in the thread:

There's 2 conspiracy theories based on 9/11.

1. The american government was warned in advance about the attacks but did nothing.
Answer - most probably true. Unfortunately....

2. The american government planned the whole thing.
Answer - Just No. There's no hard evidence to point the finger at all.

(Watch the video for a more detailed explanation).

[Bean]

It did have one central support structure rather than a normal building having quite a few.

So if the central column was knocked out then yeah it would make sense. But I reallly don't know what to think.


90% confident that it wasn't pre rigged. With the amount of people coming in and out of those buildings every day someone would've noticed them. Same with the twin towers, if people believe that they were brought down with explosions then A. How on earth did they get them rigged up without people seing? B. why would you then fly a plane into them? Surely you'd just blame it on terrorist bombs.

C. Why blame Afghanistan for all of this, but then place Saudi's in the planes. If you wanted to go over to Afghanistan for their oil you'd put Afghani's in the planes.

Nail.......head........hammer.......

[Brettles1986]

That theory is just retarded! Why would the government want to claim so many innocent lives? It was a terrorist attack plotted by al-Qeada not a government terrorist attack

i bit

Which is why if you read what I said, I in fact said "IF" !!!!!!

[Ross]

Personally I hate these conspiracies and most of you know I do my best to disprove them.

But I must admit I can't accept the official story for WTC7. Everything else I can give a reasonable explanation for. But not WTC7. Looking forward to seeing the results.

Pretty sure they were released some time in the last 4 years (since the article was written) :p

[matt_vtr_15a]

True it did have a re-inforced concrete core but seriously, that was a main feature of the design (it's structural safety).. to knock that out would take something pretty disastrous...

Rigging a building with explosives, would hardly be something easy to cover up or even pull off...

Obviously no idea what must of happened but it must be controlled in some way...

Fire alone wouldn't of cause it to fall...

[matt_vtr_15a]

Pretty sure they were released some time in the last 4 years (since the article was written) :p

Haha I looked but couldn't find them... I just saw this in my inbox from a while back and remember an office argument with a few of the lads!

[Bean]

Which is why if you read what I said, I in fact said "IF" !!!!!!

I know, the theory is still retarded. There was no government involved. As holdawayt said their only involvement would be that they got pre warned and just kept zipped...

[Brettles1986]

I know, the theory is still retarded. There was no government involved. As holdawayt said their only involvement would be that they got pre warned and just kept zipped...

You know this how? They are not going to disclose such information in the case that they were to anyone now are they

[Bean]

True it did have a re-inforced concrete core but seriously, that was a main feature of the design (it's structural safety).. to knock that out would take something pretty disastrous...

Rigging a building with explosives, would hardly be something easy to cover up or even pull off...

Obviously no idea what must of happened but it must be controlled in some way...

Fire alone wouldn't of cause it to fall...

I guess they don't plan on parts of a building falling into it when they design the structure lol

[rey]

Okay I'm glad someone said that...


So even if the debris did cause damage to the structure...

one face of the WTC 7 building was most exposed...

This would of cause the building to be particularly weakened to one of the four elevations of the building...

This would be the weak point and cause the building to fall in a particular direction, not straight down.... surely?

WTC 7 would not of fell into it's own footprint if one side of the building was a lot more damaged structurally than any another side...

It would of 'toppled' over rather than fell into itself...

Like the towers themselves WTC7 didn't fall within its own footprint, it's just the common camera angle.

[MuZiZZle]

It did have one central support structure rather than a normal building having quite a few.



but it didn't?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Wtc7_collapse_progression.png

also

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/wtc7.html

[Bean]

You know this how? They are not going to disclose such information in the case that they were to anyone now are they

You're right they wouldn't disclose any information to public, but they certainly wouldn't knowingly plan to blow buildings up with thousands of people in it and rig them with explosives! It's fucking retarded mate

[holdawayt]

Brettles my man, until you can show any evidence to contradict Bean - his theory is just as valid as yours :D

[Bean]

Brettles my man, until you can show any evidence to contradict Bean - his theory is just as valid as yours :D

My theory makes sense, the american government rigging buildings with explosive to kill innocent people are the thoughts of a fucktard

[holdawayt]

Believe what you like chaps, I'm in no position to argue either way.

I just can't see the motive. And I can't see how the people involved (There would've been many) haven't had one single leak of information in 11 years.

Conspiracy theories are interesting I'll admit, and I'll entertain them. But they're also very easy to create. Because the government will never tell them otherwise. If it's true, they're not going to admit anything. This just fuels the fire.

Too may people watch Loose change (Not even the final cut) on Youtube and instantly become experts. Then we're the "idiots that need to wake up" because we believe otherwise.

[rey]

Until a conspiracy theory comes up with concrete evidence to prove otherwise, I will believe exactly what I saw happen.

[MuZiZZle]

True it did have a re-inforced concrete core but seriously, that was a main feature of the design (it's structural safety).. to knock that out would take something pretty disastrous...


did it?

I thought they just had flame retardant foam over the main load bearing steels?


Rigging a building with explosives, would hardly be something easy to cover up or even pull off...


would it?

were all of the structural beams and pillars exposed to the people that worked there?

[Brettles1986]

You're right they wouldn't disclose any information to public, but they certainly wouldn't knowingly plan to blow buildings up with thousands of people in it and rig them with explosives! It's fucking retarded mate

Brettles my man, until you can show any evidence to contradict Bean - his theory is just as valid as yours :D

I'm not actually trying to prove anyone wrong here, I'm just merely saying that in the event that the government did plan this (which bean has expressed they wouldn't and I simply don't know either way nor insinuated that I do) then the planned demolishing of tower 7 would make sense as it's one of the places that the intelligence surrounding the attack could possibly reside.

[MuZiZZle]

I think that tower 7 was rigged, possibly due to something sensitive being in there, possibly more than data as you could have erased that with a massive electromagnet or something?

Maybe it was the arm and partial CPU from the first T800?

[matt_vtr_15a]

did it?

I thought they just had flame retardant foam over the main load bearing steels?



would it?

were all of the structural beams and pillars exposed to the people that worked there?

WTC 7 had a concrete core which would act as a structural support...


(I'm sure I read that anyway)

If the supporting structure is visible to general occupants or not, rigging the building would still have to be a stealthy process...

Getting explosives into a building occupied by various levels of security, gaining access to areas which would no doubt be restricted (maintenance areas etc.) to place explosives out of general view...

And whilst doing this ensuring that the building is rigged within a few days of the trade centres going down..

The way the building went down does scream 'controlled' to me..but it would be hard to pull off and never have leaked info about it...

Thats why I like this particular conspiracy... bit of a funny one

[Brettles1986]

Kansas City Shuffle

[Bean]

I'm not actually trying to prove anyone wrong here, I'm just merely saying that in the event that the government did plan this (which bean has expressed they wouldn't and I simply don't know either way nor insinuated that I do) then the planned demolishing of tower 7 would make sense as it's one of the places that the intelligence surrounding the attack could possibly reside.

I just highly doubt the government would have planned involvement in the attacks, if they did they would be as sadistic as hitler during aushcwitz. They just wouldn't do it lol

[Brettles1986]

I just highly doubt the governor would have planned involvement in the attacks, if they did they would be as sadistic as hitler during aushcwitz. They just wouldn't do it lol

I agree that it is highly unlikely but then people do crazy things all the time.

[Bean]

I agree that it is highly unlikely but then people do crazy things all the time.

And don't get me wrong I get where you're coming from as there I reason for conspiracy, but it's just not justifiable lol

[Mr_P]

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

[Saxoladlesta]

Dont forget about the BBC reporting the news before it had even happened
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk&feature=related

[DeanAngell1234]

I agree, buildings don't just fall straight down.

[McGuire86]

C. Why blame Afghanistan for all of this, but then place Saudi's in the planes. If you wanted to go over to Afghanistan for their oil you'd put Afghani's in the planes.

15 were Saudis, the rest were from Egypt and the UAE.

They didn't blame Afghanistan as a country. They attacked Afghanistan because the hijackers were part of Al-Qaeda. And some of Al-Qaeda's main training camps were located in Afghanistan. Also it was thought their leader Bin Laden and many other Al-Qaeda leaders were based there. Along with one of Al-Qaeda's supporters, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan (the Taliban).

[Saxoladlesta]

You mean these "19"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1559151.stm

[Rogue_Shadow]

Thread ends (http://www.pown.it/1371)

[holdawayt]

Dont forget about the BBC reporting the news before it had even happened
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk&feature=related

It's hardly uncommon for news readers to get it wrong is it? Remember when the BBC reported that there were 9 incidents during the London bombings?

Plus does this mean that the BBC were also in on it? Were they also part of the conspiracy? Do you not think that a group of journalists would rather report that a collosal government public assassination is taking place? Which is the better story?

[holdawayt]

15 were Saudis, the rest were from Egypt and the UAE.

They didn't blame Afghanistan as a country. They attacked Afghanistan because the hijackers were part of Al-Qaeda. And some of Al-Qaeda's main training camps were located in Afghanistan. Also it was thought their leader Bin Laden and many other Al-Qaeda leaders were based there. Along with one of Al-Qaeda's supporters, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan (the Taliban).

Fair point dude.

[Viper]

The brown people did it.

[Quick]

http://i.qkme.me/35stk6.jpg

[Carlvtr88]

I'm no conspiracy theorist but if the government had something to do with the original attacks and it was mainly government organisations in tower 7 then they would want to do something to cover their tracks and that seems like the ideal thing to do.

war started

This ^^^ My thoughts exactly.

Ive said it loads, I dont believe some dudes from la la land managed to hi jack not one, not two but three fekin planes.

[Carlvtr88]

It's hardly uncommon for news readers to get it wrong is it? Remember when the BBC reported that there were 9 incidents during the London bombings?

Plus does this mean that the BBC were also in on it? Were they also part of the conspiracy? Do you not think that a group of journalists would rather report that a collosal government public assassination is taking place? Which is the better story?

Government are in control of a lot of the crap you see published.

[holdawayt]

i'd best get my tin foil hat on then!

[Heliosphan]

Ive said it loads, I dont believe some dudes from la la land managed to hi jack not one, not two but three fekin planes.

Who do you think flew the planes then and how come we have phone calls made by flight-crew and passengers describing what was going on?

[Viper]

This ^^^ My thoughts exactly.

Ive said it loads, I dont believe some dudes from la la land managed to hi jack not one, not two but three fekin planes.

I have to ask. Where exactly is 'la la land'?

[McGuire86]

I have to ask. Where exactly is 'la la land'?

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, apparently.

[Viper]

Ahh I see. I wonder if it is an internationally recognised collective term for them all.

[stinkycheese]

Operation Northwoods. Gulf of Tonkin. Pearl Harbour.

Educate yourselves, follow the money trail. Look who owns the companies like Halliburton that rebuild warzones. Look who funds your news sources.
Corporations pay billions to fund politicians campaigns, do you think that kind of financial investment doesn't want a return? These are ruthless business men.

[holdawayt]

Operation Northwoods. Gulf of Tonkin. Pearl Harbour.

Educate yourselves, follow the money trail. Look who owns the companies like Halliburton that rebuild warzones. Look who funds your news sources.
Corporations pay billions to fund politicians campaigns, do you think that kind of financial investment doesn't want a return? These are ruthless business men.

I really wouldn't compare Operation Northwoods to 9/11. (I know that Loose change used it but that's hardly surprising).

It was back in the 60's, the operation was rejected almost immediately by JFK's government and the mastermind was sacked. Yes I'd agree that it's an eye opener into what the government can sometimes suggest. But it's not comparible to 9/11.

I'd like to hear your explanantion into Pearl Harbour too. I only know the "official" story. I'm all ears.

[KamRacing]

People should stop reading these theories without educating themselves independently of this conspiracy theory gumph. Cherry picking poor research data to match a hypothesis is a good way to re-enforce an idea already formed, but not a great way of proper scientific analysis.

How about researching how a controlled demolition of a building is done. The structure has to be drilled into and weakened massively to get it to come down correctly. Surprisingly thousands of people did not notice the industrial equipment needed to do this and the noise and dust caused by this work. You are also requiring a massive amount of TNT. This is a very strictly controlled substance and realistically impossible to hide a paper trail of purchasing, hide the trucks required to bring it in, the manpower to fit, the reams of wiring to link the charges and the equipment to time the detonation correctly.
Its not James Bond with a laser watch.....

Also look at how a building demolition sequence happens. Then look at the footage of the towers coming down, then ask yourself are they similar.
I'm not going to give away the very obvious difference....

Heres another thought. The President cannot even get a blowjob from an intern without people finding out. The CIA cannot even fly terrorists secretly to bases from Afghanistan without getting found out. What makes you think hundreds of people can be involved in a massive conspiracy and yet there is no proper evidence worth its salt.

Ask your own questions rather than be suckered in by people with their own agendas.
Also have a read of this article about the psychology of conspiracy theorists (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories/#ixzz0vgBeFmFi)

[holdawayt]

Thank god for that. Somebody with a bit of sense.

[Heliosphan]

Operation Northwoods. Gulf of Tonkin. Pearl Harbour


So that's a rejected proposal which had key differences to 9/11, a mistaken attack on a US destroyer and a surprise attack on a US naval base.

What about them?


Educate yourselves, follow the money trail. Look who owns the companies like Halliburton that rebuild warzones. Look who funds your news sources

Yes I can just see the US government setting up (or being complicit) in a hugely convoluted plot which clearly would have taken hundreds of people to pull off, completely fucking up Manhatten as well as dozens of local businesses costing $billions to the local economy and thrn launching into foreign wars costing $trillions. All done in order that a few rich individuals can prosper. Not only is that ridiculous but why go to such lengths? Why not just use rumour or propaganda or a few random bombings to spook people?


Corporations pay billions to fund politicians campaigns, do you think that kind of financial investment doesn't want a return? These are ruthless business men.

You say this like you're trying to enlighten people. This is common knowledge. The nature of being a politician leaves you open to bribery and corruption, it's a fact of life.

[m4tt274]

im with Kam on this. I think a plane hit a building and it sucked for all involved.
though, opinions aside, its always bugged me a bit knowing that steel melted in the fires as well as molybdenum. molybdenum doesn't melt until like 2600degrees. im not sure how hot those fires got, but to exceed that is impressive and im not sure if jet fuel would get that hot.

[stinkycheese]

Haha I'm out.