I think patriot Americans, the real People of USA over powered the CIA hired pilots of the plane supposd to be crashed in WTC 7. So the US military was told to kill them all in the air. BUT there were Detonators already placed all over WTC 7 which could have provided proof of conspiracy on 9/11 itself hence ..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
lets not ignore the kinetic energy of a 80 ton aircraft smacking into the WTC. That would cause a decent amount of structural damage. So they had this elaborate plan to take out the WTC and didnt consider how it should fall? that strikes me as unlikely.
I'll get on those sources for you later. But first; TRUE! But think carefully if that was the case.. you would see the structure begin to weaken right? It would bend and sway just like plastic sags and melts when you begin to heat it. But that's not what happened. Kinetic energy you say?! I'd say the plane was travelling at 600kph, since they needed to hit a building.. Ke = M x V^2 => (8 x 10^4) x (6 x 10^2) = 48,000,000 Newtons of kinetic energy.
I highlighted the necessary parts. Okay no "high-grade" steel was mentioned, my mistake. However, that steel was forged and imported from Japan.. the best steel makers in the world along with Germany.
These were new buildings, so better equiped to handel fire, but the plane had already taken out most of the supporting beams so the collapse is indeed possible, BUT only on the upper side of the plane not below the fire, The important question is can the collapse propagate into a Dominos effect ? Look at the failed demolishions attempts, buildings are very strong, Fires at very lower floors in past couldnt collapse buildings much taller, ie. with mush more weight forces on belower floors. However the WTC 7 shows that there musta been 3rd plane in plan by CIA, which failed.
yes when you consider that each floor of wtc 1 a nd 2 was approx. one acre in size and covered with 3 or 4 inches of concrete
Raight away, Raggy. Rid you rerute my rargument? Heeheeheeheehee! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It looks like it was partially burning, not intensely. Considering that the fire department was about 100% busy with trying to dig people out of the wreckage, would it have been a good idea to let the thing burn itself out? Answer: no. So not high grade steel, then. Ruuving right arong... 'Expensive' explosives over simply letting the thing turn into a giant conflagration with associated health risks from smoke in the air, falling debris and - oh, yeah - FIRE. Falling on people, cars, flaming bits drifting towards other buildings in a wind fan the size of New frigging York. 'Expensive' explosives vs. the above risk. Well, when you put the fire idea like that...it totally makes no sense at all. :m: Captain Geoff
I don't understand your reply at all.. are you saying that WTC 7 collapsed just like the twin towers because it was burning less intense? Again... what? The government says WTC 7 burned to the ground, but you are saying (I believe) that they decided to go with explosives in order to not let it burn to the ground. So 1) You believe they are lying about WTC 7 burning down? and 2) a building takes weeks to be prepared for implosion... can you explain the logic and probability of doing this in a burning building?
All you have to do is google "fema report wtc 7" and you'll probably get it, to make your life easier, I did it for you, straight from FEMA's conclusion; Notice the bolded parts. The first part I bolded states that the fires clearly caused it to collapse, aided by the debris from WTC 1 and 2... now wait a second, didn't PEOPLE survive that very same collapse when they hid under cars? And now one of the most solid buildings (WTC 7 was straddling that electric substation, remember and it required to have extra thick steel beams, by law) couldn't handle what a bunch of humans could? The second bolded part is something I just noticed, you have to admit that they are trying extra hard to justify the implosion of the building. http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html In this video Larry Silverstein admits to 'pulling' the WTC 7... what more do you want? If you'll excuse me, its 8pm and I'm going to go get hammered.
Because of this "terrorrism", laws are being changed. America was created on the basis of freedom of religion. That has to change, for the scriptures in Revelations 13 to come to pass. Eventually all churches except those ok'ed by a government panel or the world council of churches will be banned - including the real christian churches, which are not organised religions or approved by the council... There was a Beast, and is coming an Image to the Beast. The "beast" was Rome and today there is being created an "Image" to the beast.......with the same power to kill the first one had. This is just what happened in "the great inqusition" when the roman state united with the false roman christian church in 325 A.D. or so and threw the world into a 1000 years dark age, when anyone who differed with or questioned the popes authority was killed as a heritic. All the real christians were persecuted to death, thats how the catholic church took over, and hijacked christianty for 1000 years untill reformers, with messages from God like Martin Luther, and John Westley protested against catholicism....thats where they get the term...."protestant". Thats what happens durring the great tribulation, and can't you see it lining up for that now.
I can see now, how your complacency guides your intelligence/lack thereof. In order to learn something new, you kind of have to do it yourself.. yes? That's why people who have been spoon-fed their entire lives end up losing the family fortune within one generation. But alas, here you go: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf You'll find what you're looking for in sections 5.6.1, 5.6.2, and the conclusion. My personal curiosity is why you expected me to do this for you? Is it because I have to be the one to prove a point and therefore also search for the sources I directed you towards? Quite redundant, you could have found this 4 hours before my reply if you simply googled "WTC FEMA report", no? But you know this, and you probably expected me to come up short with my sources..
I'll have a look at the links - but I don't know that it takes weeks to set up a demolition. Hell, the right teams can have it ready in a few hours, as far as I know. Geoff
Yeah but they took down other buildings in the area too, didn't they? There were like two buildings in close proximity to WTC 1 and 2 that they also got rid of, I'm almost sure of it. Leaving these things up and apparently burning is a hugely dangerous thing. I'll check your links but it still doesn't strike me as out of probable practice. Geoff
Here's a question, too: If any detonators were found in the WTC rubble, that would have blown the entire thing. To keep a plot like that quiet, you'd have the risk that any of the searchers - some of which were volunteers, thousands of people in all - could have found such a device. Or any explosive hardware, frankly. This also would be a bad, bad risk to take. I'd imagine that a fair chunk of the firemen would know what a detonator looked like; they'd be a little pissed if they imagined that their 'brother firemen' were crushed for a giant conspiracy theory. Geoff
