Why did building seven fall down?

..................WTF?! YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IS "XRUMER"?!

Moderator: Quantum P.

User avatar
Dr. Dos
OH YES! USE VINE WHIP! <3
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Washington

Post by Dr. Dos »

Schrödinger's Cat wrote: Why did Rumsfeld tell NORAD to stand down, to not intercept the hijacked planes?
Because they didn't want to kill innocent people on the planes?

Granted they kind of like, crashed and killed far more innocent people, but that one didn't, the LET'S ROLL dude. Didn't tyrannous say something about this?
What caused the towers to collapse? (Hint: Alluminum airplanes don't make steel skyscrapers collapse. And don't give me that bullshit about the jet fuel being too hot - there were people standing in the window ledges, and they were alive and not burning alive.)
I don't know! I would like to know why WHENEVER SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS IT WAS CLEARLY THE GOVERNMENT. They knew about Pearl Harbor too :tinfoil:
Why have there been so few terrorist attacks and threats since, mmm?
The World Trade Center bombing was the February 26, 1993 attack in the garage of the New York City World Trade Center. A car bomb was detonated by Islamist terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One. It killed six, injured over 1,000, and presaged the September 11, 2001 attacks on the same buildings.

So we can assume it takes 8 years to try again.

Or! That there have been attacks in other countries instead.

<s>Or because the government did something right.</s> Let's not use crazy unbelivable conspiracy theories.
Visit the Museum of ZZT
Follow Worlds of ZZT on Twitter

Apologies for the old post you may have just read.
User avatar
Alexis Janson
wacky morning DJ
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:05 am

Post by Alexis Janson »

Image

None of the other buildings as far from the towers as building 7 recieved any more than superficial damage.

Image

Despite what silverstein said, the official story is that the building collapsed due to a long and improbable sequence of events which began with a fire somewhere in the lower floors.

No skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire.
Last edited by Alexis Janson on Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
nuero
███▄ ▀█ââ€
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 6:43 am

Post by nuero »

Schrödinger's Cat wrote:Why have there been so few terrorist attacks and threats since, mmm?
Because there were ever so many before that! We were practically drowning in terrorist attacks! I'm so glad that we have President George W. Bu
Ando
2SEXY4U
2SEXY4U
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:08 am
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Contact:

Post by Ando »

nuero wrote:I'm so glad that we have President George W. Bu
Well he's rumoured to have sucked six dirty dicks in a row. What do you think about that?
User avatar
nuero
███▄ ▀█ââ€
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 6:43 am

Post by nuero »

THAT IS NOT FUNNY
User avatar
Alexis Janson
wacky morning DJ
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:05 am

Post by Alexis Janson »

Building 7's Collapse
Features of a Textbook Implosion

The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11/01 shows all of the features of an implosion engineered through controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition is the use of pre-positioned explosive charges to destroy structures. Depending on the nature of the structure and constraints imposed by its surroundings, a controlled demolition may require a great deal of precision in its planning and execution. That is especially true of tall steel buildings in urban settings, given the natural tendency of such structures to topple. Controlled demolitions of buildings in cities are designed to implode the structures, making them sink into their footprints and fold in on themselves into a small consolidated rubble piles

Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Image

Does this look like an accident?
Last edited by Alexis Janson on Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Aplsos
ill make a meal of you
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:06 pm
Location: beautiful downtown joelville
Contact:

Post by Aplsos »

yes
User avatar
Alexis Janson
wacky morning DJ
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:05 am

Post by Alexis Janson »

Image

The Destruction of Building 7's Remains

Engineering is a science that melds theory and experience to create robust structures. Unintended structural failures are rare events that warrant the most careful scrutiny, since they test engineering theory.

That is why the NTSB carefully documents aircraft crash scenes, and preserves the aircraft remains, frequently creating partial reconstructions in hangers. If an investigation reveals a mechanical or design fault, the FAA usually mandates specific modifications of equipment or maintenance procedures system-wide, and future aircraft are designed to avoid the fault.

Unintended structural failures are less common in steel frame highrises than in aircraft. Being the only such building in history in which fire is blamed for total collapse, Building 7's remains warranted the most painstaking examination, documentation, and analysis.

Building 7's rubble pile was at least as important as any archeological dig. It contained all the clues to one of the largest structural failures in history. Without understanding the cause of the collapse, all skyscrapers become suspect, with profound implications for the safety of occupants and for the ethics of sending emergency personnel into burning buildings to save people and fight fires.

There was no legitimate reason not to dismantle the rubble pile carefully, documenting the position of each piece of steel and moving it to a warehouse for further study.
No one was thought buried in the pile, since, unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 had been evacuated hours before the collapse.
The pile was so well confined to the building's footprint that the adjacent streets could have been cleared without disturbing it.

Yet, despite the paramount importance of the remains, they were hauled away and melted down as quickly as possible. The steel was sold to scrap metals vendors and most was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked 'save' were allowed to be inspected at Fresh Kills landfill by FEMA's BPAT volunteers.

This illegal evidence destruction operation was conducted over the objections of attack victims' family members and respected public safety officials. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering Magazine, wrote in an article condemning the operation:
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.
Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in the the New York Times as saying:
I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling.
Officials running the "cleanup operation" took pains to make sure the structural steel didn't end up anywhere but in blast furnaces. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks hauling loads from Ground Zero at a cost of $1000 each. One driver who took an extended lunch break was dismissed.
Last edited by Alexis Janson on Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alexis Janson
wacky morning DJ
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:05 am

Post by Alexis Janson »

Dr. Dos wrote:
Schrödinger's Cat wrote: Why did Rumsfeld tell NORAD to stand down, to not intercept the hijacked planes?
Because they didn't want to kill innocent people on the planes?

Granted they kind of like, crashed and killed far more innocent people, but that one didn't, the LET'S ROLL dude. Didn't tyrannous say something about this?
A June 1, 2001 order from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff required that all requests from FAA for assistance in suspected hijacking events be forwarded to the Secretary of Defense for approval. From June through September 10th, Rumsfeld's office promptly dispatched intercept requests.

But not on september 11th.

Image
What caused the towers to collapse? (Hint: Alluminum airplanes don't make steel skyscrapers collapse. And don't give me that bullshit about the jet fuel being too hot - there were people standing in the window ledges, and they were alive and not burning alive.)
I don't know! I would like to know why WHENEVER SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS IT WAS CLEARLY THE GOVERNMENT. They knew about Pearl Harbor too :tinfoil:
They DID know about Pearl Harbor. They didn't orchestrate that one though, they just let it happen.

http://911review.com/precedent/century/pearlharbor.html

Image
Why have there been so few terrorist attacks and threats since, mmm?
The World Trade Center bombing was the February 26, 1993 attack in the garage of the New York City World Trade Center. A car bomb was detonated by Islamist terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One. It killed six, injured over 1,000, and presaged the September 11, 2001 attacks on the same buildings.
The World Trade Center became established as a prime target for terrorist attacks by the 1993 garage bombing, in which a 1500-pound urea-nitrate bomb, packed in a van carved out a multi-story crater in the grarage, and killed six people while injuring over one thousand subjected to toxic smoke.

As in the 9/11/01 attack, the FBI was extremely prompt in identifying the suspect. They arrested Mohammed A. Salameh and his friend Nidal Ayyad days after the attack, based on a fragment of metal at the scene traced back to a Ford Econoline rental van.

The behavior of the FBI's prime suspect Salameh was not that of the typical bomber. He reported the van stolen the day before the bombing to both the police and the rental agency, and went to the rental agency the day of the attack to attempt to retrieve his $400 deposit.
Last edited by Alexis Janson on Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lemmer
Big fat hen
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 am

Post by lemmer »

i'll admit that a lot of this is pretty shady, but to suggest that it harbors some dark secret is silly.

i'm sure there are LOTS of things the general public does not know and will not ever know about the details surrounding 9/11, it probably means that there are things that the public shouldn't know about.

the general consensus is that the wtc 7 theorists are insane, so that's good enough for me.

i would love for this administration to be exposed as a crazed monster that would fake terrorist attacks to provide an impetus for going to war, but there are plenty of things we DO know about them that put them in a bad enough light as is.

i'm tired of talking about this.
User avatar
Alexis Janson
wacky morning DJ
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:05 am

Post by Alexis Janson »

Image

Operation Northwoods

Operation Northwoods was the code name for a set of proposals by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962. The plans included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international Community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, Communist Fidel Castro.

The documents were declassified in 1997 and publicized in increments.

Here they all are
Last edited by Alexis Janson on Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alexis Janson
wacky morning DJ
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:05 am

Post by Alexis Janson »

Image
Last edited by Alexis Janson on Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zephyr
aaaa my capilaries
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 11:12 pm

Post by Zephyr »

A proffesor at my school actually went to go research the possibility of the buildings collapsing from internal explosions.

Image
MadTom
<:D
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 6:37 am

Post by MadTom »

Not a challenge so much as a curious question: Assuming that some authority did have a hand in destroying Building 7, what could their motives have been for doing so, given that they would lose millions of dollars' worth of construction?

If the administration engineered it and its only motive was going to war, surely the destruction of such impressive icons as the towers, and the concurrent attack on the Pentagon, would have been excuse enough? Why destroy a rather boring-looking building nearby into the bargain, and why in that way?

I'm aware of the implications implicit in your argument that it's possible a similar implosion process was used with the towers themselves, and the planes were just an impressive-looking distraction, but to my mind it still doesn't explain why they'd bother.
User avatar
Schroedingers Cat
We must invent teleportation!
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:35 pm
Location: Idaho, Wisconsin

Post by Schroedingers Cat »

A good question, Angry Thomas. From Wikipedia.org:
Theories as to why members of the U. S. government would have allowed the attacks to occur, perpetrated the attacks, and/or obstructed the investigation generally involve one or more of the following:
  • Michel Chossudovsky in an article entitled "The Criminalization of the State" suggests a simple motive in a plan for a New World Order. This particular theory takes root in a David Rockefeller Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994: We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.
  • An article on whatreallyhappened.com entitled "The 9/11 Reichstag Fire" suggests that the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) may have been responsible. It cites as evidence a statement from page 51 of a document titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century' published by PNAC: Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.
  • The Web site OilEmpire.us proposed that 9/11 was arranged by the U.S. government in order to benefit the arms manufacturing and oil industries.
  • The Web site 9-11 Review listed several other benefits of the attacks as possible motives, including Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and President Bush's surge in popularity, Halliburton's defense contracts for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a $3.6 billion insurance payout to the owner of the World Trade Center.
Also consider: The Patriot Act was passed almost immediately aftet 9/11,
Bush went to war against terrorism, followed by Iraq, and if we're unlucky, soon to be followed by Iran.
Post Reply