WTC Conspiracy Thread (merged)

I think it's getting more and more convoluted. One could always propose another layer of disinformation...

It would be simple to check ground zero for radiation. But NIST already analyzed the cause of the tower's collapse, and they are ordinary scientists, my father worked there for 20 years, and I visited there often as a child, he probably knows the scientists that worked on this project, too.
 
I can't say the same about WTC 1 & 2, but for WTC 7, I believe with 100% confidence that we took that building down ourselves.

- N
 
9/11 Building 7

I'm trying to figure this out. During 911 a building of the World Trade Center fell down just like the twin towers, but no planes hit it. Other than a fire on a couple levels nothing seemed to be wrong with it. It went straight down just like the towers. Has anyone heard an explanation about this?
 
desi said:
I'm trying to figure this out. During 911 a building of the World Trade Center fell down just like the twin towers, but no planes hit it. Other than a fire on a couple levels nothing seemed to be wrong with it. It went straight down just like the towers. Has anyone heard an explanation about this?
Click to expand...

During the collapse of the twin towers, the catastrophic damage to the foundations coupled with the tidal-wave of debris that flushed outward from the bottom during their collapse caused the other tower to fatigue and fall as well.

~String
 
superstring99 said:
During the collapse of the twin towers, the catastrophic damage to the foundations coupled with the tidal-wave of debris that flushed outward from the bottom during their collapse caused the other tower to fatigue and fall as well.

~String
Click to expand...

Can you please provide a link to any information that indicates an official investigation was done on building 7. Thank you in advance.
 
Ganymede said:
Can you please provide a link to any information that indicates an official investigation was done on building 7. Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

I know I quote a lot of people that I claim to know (which I will admit, does nothing to prove or disprove what I say), but I'll recount what I was told by an ex of mine, Jay, who is a chopper pilot with the NYPD and who was on the ground that day. He laughs hysterically at the notion of a conspiracy... I trust him because he was there and he would know. He was also sanding about a block away from WTC 7 on Church street when the engineers were first brought in to investigate why Number 7 was buldging from the middle. Again, you have only my words on this fact, but a cover up of this magnitude would have meant buying off my blabby mouthed ex lover who can't keep his trap shut to save his life. Just as importantly-- HUNDREDS of people would have needed to be bought off to cover this up. It didn't happen.

More facts? Here's what I got off a preliminary research, which I've never done before because, unlike nutcase conspiracy theorists, I have eyes and ears and actually have relationships with people who are better at devuldging facts than websites that do little more than spin.

From Wikipedia (granted not always the best source... but it's a start):
As the North Tower collapsed, debris hit 7 WTC "with the force of a volcanic eruption."[16] Much of the bottom 10 stories of the building's south face were destroyed, with damage visible as high as the 18th floor. A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, with flames visible on the east side of the building.[17][18] Around 2 o'clock in the afternoon, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center, between the 10 and 13th floors, which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[19] During the afternoon, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro made the decision to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area, out of concerns for the safety of personnel.[20] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. It had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse of 7 WTC.

In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse, based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E.[5] FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was primarily caused by fires on multiple stories (which were started by debris from the other two towers), and not by the actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC. The report noted that, before this collapse, there had been little, if any, record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building, such as 7 WTC.

The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse, but listed several issues requiring further investigation. FEMA made these findings:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made a three-year, US$24-million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of several WTC structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study drew not only on in-house technical expertise but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[21]

NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[2] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[2]

NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 WTC by the end of 2007.[22][23] NIST released a progress report in June 2004, outlining its working hypothesis, which was that a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[24][25] In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[26]

Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, conspiracy theorists believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.[27][28] When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts."[29] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST said that, "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[23]
Click to expand...

From the Popular Mechanics website:
For those interested in what physics and demolition experts have said regarding WTC 7’s collapse, as detailed in our book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics offers these notes:

1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris.

Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told Popular Mechanics that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report, and the screengrab below of an image of WTC7's damaged south face).

The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.

2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word “melted”: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.

Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse.

NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.”
Click to expand...

During my little digging, I came across this book. Odd... I have a subscription to PM and don't remember it. It'll be arriving in a few days... I'll be doing a little light reading on the subject:
Debunking 9/11 Myths by Popular Mechanics

That's just the tip of the iceburg. Apparently government and conracted independent investigations mean nothing; neither do investigations by numerous American and foreign "groups" (media, universities, SCIENCE MAGAZINES) who came to the same conclusion. Engineering failure.

Question, Ganymede-- is there anything in your world that doesn't happen as a result of government conspiracy?

~String
 
superstring99 said:
I know I quote a lot of people that I claim to know (which I will admit, does nothing to prove or disprove what I say), but I'll recount what I was told by an ex of mine, Jay, who is a chopper pilot with the NYPD and who was on the ground that day. He laughs hysterically at the notion of a conspiracy... I trust him because he was there and he would know. He was also sanding about a block away from WTC 7 on Church street when the engineers were first brought in to investigate why Number 7 was buldging from the middle. Again, you have only my words on this fact, but a cover up of this magnitude would have meant buying off my blabby mouthed ex lover who can't keep his trap shut to save his life. Just as importantly-- HUNDREDS of people would have needed to be bought off to cover this up. It didn't happen.
Click to expand...

-Ok, maybe they all are laughing, they were on the ground too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-6qkbxd0

Some quotes from those Wikipedia&PopularMechanics articles.

In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse, based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E.[5] FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was primarily caused by fires on multiple stories (which were started by debris from the other two towers), and not by the actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC. The report noted that, before this collapse, there had been little, if any, record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building, such as 7 WTC.

The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse, but listed several issues requiring further investigation. FEMA made these findings:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made a three-year, US$24-million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of several WTC structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study drew not only on in-house technical expertise but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[21]

NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[2] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[2]

NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 WTC by the end of 2007.[22][23] NIST released a progress report in June 2004, outlining its working hypothesis, which was that a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[24][25] In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[26]

Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, conspiracy theorists believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.[27][28] When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts."[29] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST said that, "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[23]
”
From the Popular Mechanics website:
“
For those interested in what physics and demolition experts have said regarding WTC 7’s collapse, as detailed in our book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics offers these notes:

1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris.

Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told Popular Mechanics that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report, and the screengrab below of an image of WTC7's damaged south face).




Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.


NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.”

-Well this good example of disinformation. They FEMA/NIST dont have even a clue what happened. One minute they are saying this and one minute that.
When asked how its possible 7 to collapse they are in fact telling which co-
lums should be destroyed so that building could collapse the way it did (marked red) and when asking how those columns did break down they are
silent or they started speculating. (marked bold)

And what about laws of physics, I mean the building CANT collapse as in freefall if collapse is caused by fire melting steel IMO.
And thats what reports says now, does it, collapse by fire, fire melting
steel. Never mind the already existing damage, it doesnt explain the freefall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

You see, the ones who are defending the fire theory in wtc7 have all the explaining to do when looking this from logic point of view.
I mean wtc7 case meets all the characteristics of explosion/demolition.
Thats why they added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” on their new report,
the melting theory just doesnt hold water.
And yes, this is just tip of the iceberg.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
what do you think about Tower 7, don't be timid now.

Ganymede said:
Can you please provide a link to any information that indicates an official investigation was done on building 7. Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

Mr Ganymede,
FEMA and NIST are US Govt Agencies that submitted reports on the Twin Towers Events. Tower 7 was simply not investigated, or if it was, the reports made no mention of Tower 7, very strange.:shrug: Firemen witnesses to the Tower 7 collapse said they heard "squibs" (explosions), that sounded like the detonation heard in controlled destructons of building. Not only was the damage to Tower 7 trivial the source of fires is as yet unexplained.

Persons who criticise those criticising the investigations and doing some analysis of their own are difficult to explain also. It seems that the defenders of the dogmatic faith have one of two motivations. !. The significance of a reality where Islamic Terrorists did not fly airplanes into the towers, the Pentagon or the ground in Pa,. is two montrous for contemplation, or 2. These people are, simply said, in some kind of organized cooperation, professional or amateur, to put down even dicussion of theories that differ from the what the power brokers tell us. Hell, they haven't got any more information than anyone else, and you eyes are just as good as anyone else's.

The techniques of response are similar. The tone of communication is sneering, intimidaiting, insulting and the like. There are varying degrees of response modes, but all are similar in the sound of insult and questioning of another's mental abilities. Maybe, there is a 3. Perhaps these folks consider themselves as patriots and that they consider anyone criticising their government as non-patriotic. I dunno, do you? If they are so sure of their position, why not just let the opposition have their way, after all, the truth shall set us free. If it turns out that the Bush supporters are correct, then no harm no foul.​
 
Please show me the flashes of explosives going off that accompany a controlled demolition, otherwise STFU. You have nothing to back up your arguments with but human testimony, which is ultimately doomed to being wrong/controversial/incorrect, and many other people have testified the opposite of what the people you quoted have said. At this point, you either need to show me some explosions, or get the hell out of here.
 
Dark520 said:
Please show me the flashes of explosives going off that accompany a controlled demolition, otherwise STFU.
Click to expand...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=La0LOG2NBM4


You have nothing to back up your arguments with but human testimony, which is ultimately doomed to being wrong/controversial/incorrect, and many other people have testified the opposite of what the people you quoted have said. At this point, you either need to show me some explosions, or get the hell out of here.
Click to expand...


Now here's my challenge to you. Please show me video evidence of a building collapsing in symetrical fashion. Without the aid of explosives. If you can't STFU and GTFO.
 
Dark520 said:
Please show me the flashes of explosives going off that accompany a controlled demolition, otherwise STFU. You have nothing to back up your arguments with but human testimony, which is ultimately doomed to being wrong/controversial/incorrect, and many other people have testified the opposite of what the people you quoted have said. At this point, you either need to show me some explosions, or get the hell out of here.
Click to expand...

Hey, beeing little hostile now, take it easy, I´ve been fishing and having free time, but about these questions you have in another WTC7 thread, here you are.

1. In every single controlled demolition, the buildings are destroyed from the bottom up; the base is taken out, then the tower basically crushes itself as it falls. Last time I checked, the WTCs collapsed from the point of impact of the planes down.
NOT a characteristic of a controlled demolition.

-Irrelevant question regarding WTC7 and that is the topic.
No plane impact in WTC7

2. In any controlled demolition, you will see flashes of light where the explosives went off, please point them out to me as the towers are collapsing... oh, wait there aren't any to point out.
NOT a characteristic of a controlled demolition.

-So you suggest that if there isnt any flashes, it isnt controlled demolition ?
There isnt any flashes in next clips, in those controlled demolitions.
Also notice that when doing controlled demolition the building is usually stripped totally so the flashes will be easier to see, WTCs wasnt stripped any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Vu15D_0oI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neMRCoOUGaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-WvQbFMIWU&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txGeTAsIrnE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj7ai7iqecY&mode=related&search=

-In this one see flashes but this building is stripped to bones, only
floors and vertical columns left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DziWmjPI8RE&mode=related&search=

3. Loud bangs happen when the bombs go off, I mean LOUD; you would be able to hear them on a video from outside. Please point out to me the loud bangs in the videos. Even if you were to find some, with no accompanying flashes, there would be no way to prove they were bombs... In a collapsing building there are lots of things that make noise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD4NOlUF3A4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V1HpRXzFaE (WTC1)

Eyewitness testimonys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5qVkJ0-hs&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpTcpCOwBwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7BGm9MKv4U&mode=related&search=

And here is case presented by Italian TV that WTC7 was demolished.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

Infowars clip, Silverstein says "pull it".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3zY&mode=related&search=

Now, I got just one question for you this time regarding WTC7;
How do you reckon that how is it possible to building to collapse in freefall speed due structure damaged by fire ? And if you have another theory why it did collapse, please share it.

WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U
 
9/11 Building 7 - Press Release.

Press Release

On the 3rd September 2007 Martin Noakes releases his latest song that challenges the official account of 9/11.

This release is an attempt to get a 9/11 Truth song into the charts (during the week of the 11th), and raise awareness of many of the unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11.

To hear the song and watch the video visit here: 911building7.co. u k

Any profit generated by the sale of this recording will be used to fund the 9/11 truth movement and related topics.

This song is currently receiving airplay in America and Canada, and is featured in at least two 9/11 documentaries, including the latest documentary by Dave VonKleist and William Lewis “9/11 Ripple Effect”.

It will be a download ONLY release and will be available from the following stores and in the following countries from the 3rd September 2007 (all sales will count towards a chart position).

iTunes - iTunes U.S. iTunes Australia/N.Z. iTunes Canada
iTunes UK/European Union iTunes Japan
Other Stores - Napster
Contact - martin@911building7.co.uk

Martin Noakes

Please spread this info as far and wide as possible!

To download the press release with pictures visit:ww w. songcity.co. u k /911Building7/PressRelease.doc
 
desi said:
I'm trying to figure this out. During 911 a building of the World Trade Center fell down just like the twin towers, but no planes hit it.
Click to expand...
building 7 did not fall like buildings 1 and 2, not even close.
Other than a fire on a couple levels nothing seemed to be wrong with it.
Click to expand...
pieces of one of the planes hit the building, plus pieces from 1 and 2.
It went straight down just like the towers
Click to expand...
how else was it supposed to fall? follow an ess curve?
Has anyone heard an explanation about this?
Click to expand...
yes. all buildings fall straight down. it has something to do with gravity.
 
spidergoat said:
I think it's getting more and more convoluted. One could always propose another layer of disinformation...

It would be simple to check ground zero for radiation. But NIST already analyzed the cause of the tower's collapse, and they are ordinary scientists, my father worked there for 20 years, and I visited there often as a child, he probably knows the scientists that worked on this project, too.
Click to expand...

That explains why you are trying so hard to cover up any truth that comes up about 911. Either you or your father or both of you, took part in the 911 planing and execution. Or may be Bush has paid you to cover up his 911 mess.
 
James911 said:
That explains why you are trying so hard to cover up any truth that comes up about 911. Either you or your father or both of you, took part in the 911 planing and execution. Or may be Bush has paid you to cover up his 911 mess.
Click to expand...

The truth has already come out, you just don't seem to recognize it.
Spidergoat a terrorist:D sure.
Can you provide one shred of evidence that Bush or any U.S. citizen had any involvement in 9-11? I won't hold my breath untill you provide it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top