LOOK OUT, THE BUILDING IS GONNA COLLAPSE!!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter somebigguy
  • Start date Start date
S

somebigguy

Guest
Take a look...

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/14/spain.block.fire/index.html

It burned for 24 hours and didn't collapse. How long did the South tower burn? 45 minutes or so...

Here's a few interesting quotes:

Hours earlier, several top floors collapsed onto lower ones.

If the partial collapses keep happening, it would be lying to say it's impossible that the whole building couldn't fall down,
Click to expand...

Kind of what you would expect huh? Weakened portions of the building giving way little by little, small collapses here and there. Nothing like the perfectly symmetrical collapse at the rate of freefall that happened TO THREE BUILDINGS IN ONE DAY in New York.

Quote from stupid person: Duh, it was the jet fuel.

Look at this building:
vstory.madrid.building.ap.jpg


It looks a thousand times worse than any of the trade towers did, and it's still standing.
 
somebigguy said:
Take a look...

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/14/spain.block.fire/index.html

It burned for 24 hours and didn't collapse. How long did the South tower burn? 45 minutes or so...

Here's a few interesting quotes:



Kind of what you would expect huh? Weakened portions of the building giving way little by little, small collapses here and there. Nothing like the perfectly symmetrical collapse at the rate of freefall that happened TO THREE BUILDINGS IN ONE DAY in New York.

Quote from stupid person: Duh, it was the jet fuel.

Look at this building:
vstory.madrid.building.ap.jpg


It looks a thousand times worse than any of the trade towers did, and it's still standing.
Click to expand...

Excellent article, and point to your argument.
 
I wonder if when it does collapse, all the metal beams will break into about the right size to fit into one of Controlled Demolitions trucks. That happened three times in one day too.
 
somebigguy said:
I wonder if when it does collapse, all the metal beams will break into about the right size to fit into one of Controlled Demolitions trucks. That happened three times in one day too.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand. The jet fuel allowed a fire hot enough to weaken steel. Because there was so much fuel in the tanks (b/c the flight's original destination was the West Coast somewhere), that made the fire hotter.

Well, except for WTC building #7..... that massive piece of steel was weakened by the great shifting of Earth by the 2 planes hitting the Twin Towers. What did that measure on the Richter Scale? It wouldn't be a very good idea to build a tower in the middle of New York City that couldn't withstand some kind of small earthquake..... so the sheer power and tonnage of steel falling down around it caused #7 to fall in perfect implosion fashion.

One thing I remember from Sept. 11, 2001, was the news sources that said that detenation devices were placed throughout Tower 7 to bring it down b/c its structural integrity was compromised by the other towers collapsing. Is that still the story used or isn't there one anymore?
 
Have you wondered if the firemen and other people are worried that it might collapse is because they actually believe the fires caused the WTC to collapse?

This would be a sign of how people really have been fooled, and all over the world.

That in turns would mean that we are not having much of an effect...yet.

Or do you think people are just saying they think the building might collapse because they were told to say that?
 
Good Doctor HST said:
No, you don't understand. The jet fuel allowed a fire hot enough to weaken steel. Because there was so much fuel in the tanks (b/c the flight's original destination was the West Coast somewhere), that made the fire hotter.

Well, except for WTC building #7..... that massive piece of steel was weakened by the great shifting of Earth by the 2 planes hitting the Twin Towers. What did that measure on the Richter Scale? It wouldn't be a very good idea to build a tower in the middle of New York City that couldn't withstand some kind of small earthquake..... so the sheer power and tonnage of steel falling down around it caused #7 to fall in perfect implosion fashion.

One thing I remember from Sept. 11, 2001, was the news sources that said that detenation devices were placed throughout Tower 7 to bring it down b/c its structural integrity was compromised by the other towers collapsing. Is that still the story used or isn't there one anymore?
Click to expand...
OMG, do you know where to find those news reports??? I would kill to have a copy of those...
 
EricHufschmid said:
Have you wondered if the firemen and other people are worried that it might collapse is because they actually believe the fires caused the WTC to collapse?

This would be a sign of how people really have been fooled, and all over the world.

That in turns would mean that we are not having much of an effect...yet.

Or do you think people are just saying they think the building might collapse because they were told to say that?
Click to expand...
Notice this statement:

"Don't Fall Down," read Monday's front-page headline on the free newspaper
Click to expand...

I think the collapses at the WTC are in the back of every firefighters mind now. Before that, it was something they never really considered. The general public would have this concern as well, just because it's what they've been told time and time by the media.

Anyone see the Naudet brothers video from inside the WTC??? You should see those firefighters, they were setting up command posts in the lobby, delegating tasks to the firefighters climbing the stairs. It was business as usual for them that day. Those collapses blindsided them, the last thing they were expecting.
 
Good Doctor HST said:
No, you don't understand. The jet fuel allowed a fire hot enough to weaken steel. Because there was so much fuel in the tanks (b/c the flight's original destination was the West Coast somewhere), that made the fire hotter.

Well, except for WTC building #7..... that massive piece of steel was weakened by the great shifting of Earth by the 2 planes hitting the Twin Towers. What did that measure on the Richter Scale? It wouldn't be a very good idea to build a tower in the middle of New York City that couldn't withstand some kind of small earthquake..... so the sheer power and tonnage of steel falling down around it caused #7 to fall in perfect implosion fashion.

One thing I remember from Sept. 11, 2001, was the news sources that said that detenation devices were placed throughout Tower 7 to bring it down b/c its structural integrity was compromised by the other towers collapsing. Is that still the story used or isn't there one anymore?
Click to expand...
Please tell me you know where to find those news reports!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
somebigguy said:
Please tell me you know where to find those news reports!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


I'm sorry somebigguy. This is from memory on that fateful day. They were saying something like demo experts went into tower #7 to set up for a controlled building collapse... reasoning was the building was ruined by the collapse of the Twin Towers and was structurally unsound. I can't remember who or what news station said this stuff.

I can't believe nobody else remembers this. I never brought it up before b/c I thought it was what actually happened. Then I kept seeing on this board that Tower #7 was never discussed... I thought that was why; it was known that was the reason the building went down; by planned implosion.

Just sitting here today, I'm starting to highly doubt that scenario. I just e-mailed a couple different demolition companies to see how long it takes to set-up the explosives to bring down a high-rise building, and how does that figure change in accordance with the number of floors in the building. To correctly place dynamite/blasting caps/timing info in a couple of hours.... I don't know if that can be done. Hopefully, I'll get an e-mail back with some info. I'll keep you posted to what they say.
 
Good Doctor HST said:
I'm sorry somebigguy. This is from memory on that fateful day. They were saying something like demo experts went into tower #7 to set up for a controlled building collapse... reasoning was the building was ruined by the collapse of the Twin Towers and was structurally unsound. I can't remember who or what news station said this stuff.

I can't believe nobody else remembers this. I never brought it up before b/c I thought it was what actually happened. Then I kept seeing on this board that Tower #7 was never discussed... I thought that was why; it was known that was the reason the building went down; by planned implosion.

Just sitting here today, I'm starting to highly doubt that scenario. I just e-mailed a couple different demolition companies to see how long it takes to set-up the explosives to bring down a high-rise building, and how does that figure change in accordance with the number of floors in the building. To correctly place dynamite/blasting caps/timing info in a couple of hours.... I don't know if that can be done. Hopefully, I'll get an e-mail back with some info. I'll keep you posted to what they say.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point. In order to bring that building down, it had to be wired up beforehand which raises the distinct possibility that the others were too.

Common sense says you can't wire those things up in a couple of hours. Even if you could, there was no way they were trucking in dynamite to the WTC on September 11.

The official story is that it was weakened by fire, much like the other two buildings and came down because of that. There was a tank of diesel fuel in the basement they're blaming it on even though the tank was found intact. Regardless, diesel engines are made out of steel aren't they????

It is denied by everyone (except Silverstein) that the building was brought down with explosives. I have some clips of firefighters saying it would be coming down shortly, but no clips specifically mentioning the building was actually wired. If we could find those news reports, we'd have, yet another, smoking gun to be ignored by the media.
 
What kind of reports? Newspaper? TV? I've heard that these reports are out there, but have never been able to find them.
 
You people amaze me you are comparing apples to oranges. This building was not nearly the same size as the WTC. It also was not of the same design as the WTC. You also have the fact that no plane was crashed into the building in Madrid. This is an attempt to distort facts to make them fit your conspiracy fantasies. You are people that claim to be American but continually show us why you hate America. You continue to conceive lies and misconstrue the facts. You also continue to overlook on main fact because it does not fit your agenda. A conspiracy of the size that you are talking about would have taken well over a thousand individuals to be involved and keeping that many people quiet just would not be possible. You have made a game of this pretending that this WTC conspiracy is factual. The facts are that hijackers took planes and crashed them in the WTC. The combination of fire and structural damage caused the WTC to fall.

You as human beings may continue to make jokes and play your game, but this does not make you American. What makes you an American is, believing in the system. You have the right to question your government but to accuse your government of murder without facts is not American. I for one dislike some things the government does but I believe the government works. I have spent many years outside the US when I was in my twenties. This helped me appreciate that we have the best country in the world.
 
I would suggest you watch the Truth & Lies Of 9/11 before claiming you know all the facts:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/index.shtml#quint

Secondly, tower 7 was a completely different architecture then Tower 1 and Tower 2. Furthermore, it was not hit by a plane. Tower 7 was 47 stories high and much closer to the size of the 32 story Madrid building.

These facts make your claims that the towers collapsed because of their size/architecture as well as the fact they were hit by airplanes completely false. Tower7 was a different architecture then Tower 1 or 2 and was not hit by a plane.

Yet, all three of them collapsed.

I would suggest you take a hard look at what is left of the madrid building after it burned for 24 hours and then look at each of the three WTC buildings before they collapsed and ask yourself which one looks worse and is much more likely to collapse.

No steel framed building has collapsed from fire before or since 9/11. NEVER. Yet, three collapsed that day and you don't question it.

If you have read any of the documents posted in this site by Gold9472 you would know that the government was ABSOLUTELY involved in the attacks that day. The level of their involvement is in debate, however there is NO QUESTION they were involved.

Finally, no facts have been distorted to fit "Conspiracy Fantasies". An objective look at the evidence is all it takes to come to these conclusions. Those that refuse to look at the evidence logically and consider what it means are merely government pawns.
 
mega-floating point said:
You people amaze me you are comparing apples to oranges. This building was not nearly the same size as the WTC. It also was not of the same design as the WTC.
Click to expand...

Yes, the buildings were different. The WTC towers and Building 7 were 100% steel, so they should have been stronger. And steel bends, it doesn't bust into pieces, so the WTC and Building 7 should have twisted and bent, not ejected tons of dust.

Lots of people think jet fuel is a magic substance that can cause steel skyscrapers to go Poof! And the diesel fuel in Building 7 caused that building to go Poof!

We are witnessing the slaughter of the mentally weak. Life is a competitive struggle, and the nitwits will always lose in the long run.
 
somebigguy said:
It is denied by everyone (except Silverstein) that the building was brought down with explosives. I have some clips of firefighters saying it would be coming down shortly, but no clips specifically mentioning the building was actually wired. If we could find those news reports, we'd have, yet another, smoking gun to be ignored by the media.
Click to expand...

Here's a link that shows a close-up of Tower 7 right before it collapses:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm

I just got some info from Implosion World. They said that it typically takes anywhere from 3-5 days to set-up a planned controlled demolition of a high-rise. So the idea that workers rushed into the building to "pull" the building doesn't work. Therefore, if the building was pulled, the set-up was done well before it was needed. So, why was the building set-up in the first place?

After watching the link to the video, there's no doubt the building was pulled. So why hide and disinform the public? Maybe b/c then everyone would put together the clues and start asking questions?
 
EricHufschmid said:
Yes, the buildings were different. The WTC towers and Building 7 were 100% steel, so they should have been stronger. And steel bends, it doesn't bust into pieces, so the WTC and Building 7 should have twisted and bent, not ejected tons of dust.

Lots of people think jet fuel is a magic substance that can cause steel skyscrapers to go Poof! And the diesel fuel in Building 7 caused that building to go Poof!

We are witnessing the slaughter of the mentally weak. Life is a competitive struggle, and the nitwits will always lose in the long run.
Click to expand...
Your right Eric, except for the fact that the Nitwits usually do win. Not for any reason other than the fact that there's so damn many of them.
 
Good Doctor HST said:
Here's a link that shows a close-up of Tower 7 right before it collapses:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm

I just got some info from Implosion World. They said that it typically takes anywhere from 3-5 days to set-up a planned controlled demolition of a high-rise. So the idea that workers rushed into the building to "pull" the building doesn't work. Therefore, if the building was pulled, the set-up was done well before it was needed. So, why was the building set-up in the first place?

After watching the link to the video, there's no doubt the building was pulled. So why hide and disinform the public? Maybe b/c then everyone would put together the clues and start asking questions?
Click to expand...
That's the big question isn't it. It also makes the possibility of the other towers being wired as well a lot more likely.
 
A couple more images:

capt.jj81302130840.spain_building_fire_jj813.jpg

captjj80202130156spainbuilding.jpg

r34933501715ex.jpg


Too bad they don't build em like this in New York.
 
mega-floating point said:
You as human beings may continue to make jokes and play your game, but this does not make you American. What makes you an American is, believing in the system. You have the right to question your government but to accuse your government of murder without facts is not American. I for one dislike some things the government does but I believe the government works. I have spent many years outside the US when I was in my twenties. This helped me appreciate that we have the best country in the world.
Click to expand...

First of all... In order to claim the title of "American", all you need do is be born here. Secondly, there are more than enough facts that build a case against Government complicity. If you ignore those facts, there's nothing I can do to help you understand what's going on.

In regards to what you said about this being the "best country in the world", you're probably right. We have the most money, the most luxuries, and the most "freedom". However, what we do with that freedom, dictates who we are. As of late, we're invading countries pre-emptively, creating terrorist states where none existed, have killed 1000's of innocents, etc... I certainly wouldn't classify us as the "Best" anymore.
 
somebigguy said:
I would suggest you watch the Truth & Lies Of 9/11 before claiming you know all the facts:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/index.shtml#quint

Secondly, tower 7 was a completely different architecture then Tower 1 and Tower 2. Furthermore, it was not hit by a plane. Tower 7 was 47 stories high and much closer to the size of the 32 story Madrid building.

These facts make your claims that the towers collapsed because of their size/architecture as well as the fact they were hit by airplanes completely false. Tower7 was a different architecture then Tower 1 or 2 and was not hit by a plane.

Yet, all three of them collapsed.

I would suggest you take a hard look at what is left of the madrid building after it burned for 24 hours and then look at each of the three WTC buildings before they collapsed and ask yourself which one looks worse and is much more likely to collapse.

No steel framed building has collapsed from fire before or since 9/11. NEVER. Yet, three collapsed that day and you don't question it.

If you have read any of the documents posted in this site by Gold9472 you would know that the government was ABSOLUTELY involved in the attacks that day. The level of their involvement is in debate, however there is NO QUESTION they were involved.

Finally, no facts have been distorted to fit "Conspiracy Fantasies". An objective look at the evidence is all it takes to come to these conclusions. Those that refuse to look at the evidence logically and consider what it means are merely government pawns.
Click to expand...

You say that facts have not been distorted to to fit your "Conspiracy Fantasies". How many times have you mentioned in your ramblings that the hijackers were not on the passenger manifests? The truth is that you have never seen the actual manifests. All you have seen is news reports showing the people on the 9/11 flights. These reports are not flight manifests they are passenger lists that are created by the media. The reason the hijackers are not listed is because that is how these lists are compiled. Just as a suicide bomber is not listed along with the people that he kills. This is just one of your distorted facts. It is obvious that you hate this country so why do you not move away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top