WTC conspiracy theory

[Tony]

Interesting

 

Please wait a few moments for Video to Load!

[parthiban]

That's quite amusing but doesn't prove any form of conspiracy - must admit from what I've seen though that the circumstances around the collapse of WTC7 are a little suspicious.

[Sagitar]

That's quite amusing but doesn't prove any form of conspiracy - must admit from what I've seen though that the circumstances around the collapse of WTC7 are a little suspicious.

 

Not again please.

 

Who says the background pictures are live?

 

I watched a lot of television that day and saw the same pictures repeated time after time.

[Tony]

That's quite amusing but doesn't prove any form of conspiracy - must admit from what I've seen though that the circumstances around the collapse of WTC7 are a little suspicious.

 

Not again please.

 

Who says the background pictures are live?

 

I watched a lot of television that day and saw the same pictures repeated time after time.

 

It's only a theory

[liner33]

I find it strange that people think it surprising that by crashing a fully laden airliner into a skyscraper it will collapse and damage all the buildings around

 

Guess people prefer to think there are more too these things , its like the JFK assassination , years and years of people being convinced there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll and in recent years I've seen a documentary that fully recreated the shooting and played a video game that proves its not hard at all to fully replicate what happened with just one shooter

 

The moon landings however never happened :)

[Tony]

How come "NO" aircraft parts were found in the Pentagon

 

And the moon landings did happen.... spoofing that with the number of people involved would be imposable.

[liner33]

How come "NO" aircraft parts were found in the Pentagon

 

And the moon landings did happen.... spoofing that with the number of people involved would be imposable.

 

Who says no aircraft parts were found?? I remember seeing an engine at the time

[liner33]

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analy...ons/debris.html

 

I was joking about the moon landing thing

[Tony]

Aircraft debris into an immovable object tends to be splinters and more or less indesernable from the original construction, i fail to see how an aircraft could puncture such a small hole but deliver such an injury without leaving any aircraft evidence.

[liner33]

Did you look at those link especially the F4 into the concrete block ??

[Tony]

Did you look at those link especially the F4 into the concrete block ??

 

Yeah but the Pentagon is hardly a solid block of concrete..... Another thing is the tail is some three story's high and yet it left no damage over two story's in the building

[liner33]

Did you look at those link especially the F4 into the concrete block ??

 

Yeah but the Pentagon is hardly a solid block of concrete..... Another thing is the tail is some three story's high and yet it left no damage over two story's in the building

 

I wouldnt know as I've never been there but looking at the aerial views its a pretty substantial building and airliners are not very solid at all (ever sat in the back and seen the fuselage flex as the plane takes off??) Upon impact I would imagine the whats left would just squash up and not retain its shape at all tail planes often snap off in plane crashes and they are heavy and the fuselage is weak , just google "plane crashes" to see lots of pics of airliners with their tailplanes not attached

[Tony]

According to the CCTV footage as the plane went in the tail was intact and yet the upper floors were undamaged until the fire

[parthiban]

For me it's not surprising that it collapsed, more the way it collapsed - but I don't believe these conspiracy stories, just can see the argument they're making as it cannot be denied that WTC7 collapsed in slightly too perfect a way.

[Rich]

I thought skyscrappers were designed to collapse this way rather than fall over?

[parthiban]

I thought skyscrappers were designed to collapse this way rather than fall over?

Well they're also designed to be able to withstand impacts from planes and not collapse

 

Seriously though, you're right, at the end of the day there are so many factors in play which is why I don't pay too much attention to the conspiracies.

[Bazza]

I thought skyscrappers were designed to collapse this way rather than fall over?

 

I dont think they are designed to collapse or fall over

[Rich]

I thought skyscrappers were designed to collapse this way rather than fall over?

 

I dont think they are designed to collapse or fall over

 

Why not? They must think about these things when designing tall buildings. If something was to happen that would weaken the structure of the building it makes sense to create it so it collapses causing minimal damage. Both towers fell straight down and I don't think that was a conincidence. It's abit like when they demolish buildings, they blow them up so they fall straight down.

[parthiban]

I thought skyscrappers were designed to collapse this way rather than fall over?

 

I dont think they are designed to collapse or fall over

 

Why not? They must think about these things when designing tall buildings. If something was to happen that would weaken the structure of the building it makes sense to create it so it collapses causing minimal damage. Both towers fell straight down and I don't think that was a conincidence. It's abit like when they demolish buildings, they blow them up so they fall straight down.

Yep I'm sure that is true but they are designed to not collapse - so there was a failure. It's not the main towers I'm talking about though, it's WTC7 which had no impact yet collapsed like a controlled demolition.

 

Yes the foundations would have taken a beating, but it's effectively the same as an earthquake which these buildings are definitely designed to withstand.

[Bazza]

I thought skyscrappers were designed to collapse this way rather than fall over?

 

I dont think they are designed to collapse or fall over

 

Why not? They must think about these things when designing tall buildings. If something was to happen that would weaken the structure of the building it makes sense to create it so it collapses causing minimal damage. Both towers fell straight down and I don't think that was a conincidence. It's abit like when they demolish buildings, they blow them up so they fall straight down.

 

no, they design them to withstand any likelyhood of collapse, wether it is built in a tornado/hurricane or earthquake zone

would you want to live or work in a building that was designed to collapse !

when they demolish buildings they work out the controlled collapse dependant on the type of construction

tall buildings generally are brought down vertically, because of the consequences of if toppling into surrounding buildings

smaller buildings where space permits will be toppled

in all cases its a very scientific job working out the structural integrity and where the explosives are placed, to do the job

 

the WTC was built to withstand airplane collision, but only to a certain size, they never believed a jet liner would ever crash into it

I still find it suspicious the way the towers collapsed, the fact that they did indeed collapse, the fact that both towers collapsed the same way within a short timespan between, the fact that they collapsed the same way but were not damaged the same way, and the way it looked so much like a controlled collapse

[Tony]

I found it odd that the weakened steel could collapse in such a uniform fashion since the heat generated by the fuel fire was not uniform, you would think the WTC would collapse off centre plus the chances of two perfect demolitions defies acceptance.