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

[somebigguy]

Take a look...

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...ire/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,

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:


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

[Gold9472]

Take a look...

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...ire/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:


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

Excellent article, and point to your argument.

[somebigguy]

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.

[Good Doctor HST]

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.

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?

[EricHufschmid]

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?

[somebigguy]

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?

OMG, do you know where to find those news reports??? I would kill to have a copy of those...

[somebigguy]

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?

Notice this statement:

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

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.

[somebigguy]

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?

Please tell me you know where to find those news reports!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Good Doctor HST]

Please tell me you know where to find those news reports!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

[somebigguy]

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.

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.