Has anyone come up with a plausible explanation as to why tower 7 collapsed? No plane hit it, it used to house a lot of important financial and security agencies offices and apparently fell down because the other two towers were hit by aeroplanes. Seems a bit weird to me.
But it has to be an accounting error or poor tracking, it's not as if someone pulled up to the Federal Reserve in 8 million armored trucks and drove it away.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 8 minutes ago
I have a hard time with a lot of these theories as they seem to far fetched, vague and don;t hold water. For example, what has Rumsfeld admitting poor accounting in the military got to do with 9/11.
--------------------------------
You would put being unable to account for 2.3 trillion dollars down to bad accountancy ??
Do you realise how much money that is ??
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, thats what the whole point of Rumsfeld's speach was about wasn't it? Recognising that there was too much money wasted and unaccounted for in the military.
Again, there seems to be no link to 9/11 other than this speech happening the prior day.
I'm not doubting that a lot of that money could be being siphoned off into the hands of the corrupt, merely pointing out the tenuous links between one story and another that often leads these conspiracy theories to have little weight and actually muddy the waters even more and make the truth harder to come by.
Sorry i said tower 8 earlier. it was tower 7
here is footage of what looks like a controlled explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI
here is tower 7 standing when the news were reporting that it had colapsed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 8 minutes ago
I have a hard time with a lot of these theories as they seem to far fetched, vague and don;t hold water. For example, what has Rumsfeld admitting poor accounting in the military got to do with 9/11.
--------------------------------
You would put being unable to account for 2.3 trillion dollars down to bad accountancy ??
Do you realise how much money that is ??
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, thats what the whole point of Rumsfeld's speach was about wasn't it? Recognising that there was too much money wasted and unaccounted for in the military.
Again, there seems to be no link to 9/11 other than this speech happening the prior day.
I'm not doubting that a lot of that money could be being siphoned off into the hands of the corrupt, merely pointing out the tenuous links between one story and another that often leads these conspiracy theories to have little weight and actually muddy the waters even more and make the truth harder to come by.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough I hear what you're saying about muddying the waters.
All I'm saying is that it's an amazing coincidence that on September 10th the Pentagon announces that it can't account for 2.3 trillion dollars and then on September 11th the Pentagon is attacked in a supposed terrorist attack and everyone suddenly forgets about the missing trillions.
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 17 minutes ago
Has anyone come up with a plausible explanation as to why tower 7 collapsed? No plane hit it, it used to house a lot of important financial and security agencies offices and apparently fell down because the other two towers were hit by aeroplanes. Seems a bit weird to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Building 7 only had fires on a couple of it's floors. Apparently that was enough for it to suddenly collapse in on itself in something exactly resembling a controlled demolition.
First time that's ever happened to any steel building anywhere in the world.
The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention Building 7. That's how they got round explaining it.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 17 minutes ago
Has anyone come up with a plausible explanation as to why tower 7 collapsed? No plane hit it, it used to house a lot of important financial and security agencies offices and apparently fell down because the other two towers were hit by aeroplanes. Seems a bit weird to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Building 7 only had fires on a couple of it's floors. Apparently that was enough for it to suddenly collapse in on itself in something exactly resembling a controlled demolition.
First time that's ever happened to any steel building anywhere in the world.
The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention Building 7. That's how they got round explaining it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
check the links a couple of comments above.
'First time that's ever happened to any steel building anywhere in the world.'
well besides tower 1 and tower 2, ahem
Is Fappageddon real?
Why I haven't I seen it yet?
As I said on another article I would recommend checking out Dr Judy Wood who is a former professor of mechanical engineering and she wrote a book entitled "Where did the Towers go?".
It basically questions how two steel buildings the size of World Trade Centre 1 and 2 could for the most part essentially be turned into dust. I've watched a couple of her lectures on YouTube and it makes fascinating and shocking viewing.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 10 hours, 36 minutes ago
As I said on another article I would recommend checking out Dr Judy Wood who is a former professor of mechanical engineering and she wrote a book entitled "Where did the Towers go?".
It basically questions how two steel buildings the size of World Trade Centre 1 and 2 could for the most part essentially be turned into dust. I've watched a couple of her lectures on YouTube and it makes fascinating and shocking viewing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankie
In support of the 2300 billion theory. There's also a school of thought that in destroying the towers a lot of evidence to fraud etc was being destroyed with them.
But i also believe it served lots of purposes......
Including new laws. Financial opportunities and even for those who have seen the long kiss goodnight, a fund raiser.
If you haven't seen that film, watch it you'll notice the part I'm referring to immediately.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Before impact on the tower the second plane was measured at flying at about 500 mph which is another major anomaly as that type of plane can only achieve that speed at a mucher higher altitude where the air density is significantly less.
At near sea level and that descent that speed would have been impossible to achieve for that aircraft.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html
Also the plane was coming in at an angle so to hit such a small target with such precision at that speed would have been incredibly difficult even for a very skilled and experienced pilot.
Apparently some guys with a few hours practice on flight simulators were able to do it perfectly first time round.
Frankie
Have you seen the movie, 'The Long Kiss Goodnight'?
In that, (which was out in 1996) the scheme is a U.S agency concerned about budget cuts, plan to kill half a city, frame a 'known terrorist' and that way the senate won't cut the budget. It gets described as a fund raiser in that.
Flash I have seen that film but not for a few years. Will look out for that if I see it again.
As for 2.3 trillion thing. Is that linked to the 'destroying the buildings, thus destroying the evidence of extremely high level fraud' theory?
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 15 hours, 15 minutes ago
Has anyone come up with a plausible explanation as to why tower 7 collapsed? No plane hit it, it used to house a lot of important financial and security agencies offices and apparently fell down because the other two towers were hit by aeroplanes. Seems a bit weird to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was severely damaged by debris from the towers falling and had been burning for hours, the FDNY were concerned about the structural integrity and evacuated it after exterior walls showed signs of deformation. It was a BBC reporter that claimed it had collapsed 30 mins before the event but at that time it was shrouded in dust and smoke due to the tower collapse so couldnt be seen.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 14 hours, 32 minutes ago
As I said on another article I would recommend checking out Dr Judy Wood who is a former professor of mechanical engineering and she wrote a book entitled "Where did the Towers go?".
It basically questions how two steel buildings the size of World Trade Centre 1 and 2 could for the most part essentially be turned into dust. I've watched a couple of her lectures on YouTube and it makes fascinating and shocking viewing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the footage of the towers after the attack, massive structural damage and raging fires.
How could the wires and explosives survive and function perfectly to carry out such a demolition?
It was a BBC reporter that claimed it had collapsed 30 mins before the event but at that time it was shrouded in dust and smoke due to the tower collapse so couldnt be seen.
--------------------------------
Actually Building 7 could be seen quite clearly in the background as the BBC reporter claimed it had collapsed.
BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TW…: http://youtu.be/6mxFRigYD3s
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 14 hours, 32 minutes ago
As I said on another article I would recommend checking out Dr Judy Wood who is a former professor of mechanical engineering and she wrote a book entitled "Where did the Towers go?".
It basically questions how two steel buildings the size of World Trade Centre 1 and 2 could for the most part essentially be turned into dust. I've watched a couple of her lectures on YouTube and it makes fascinating and shocking viewing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the footage of the towers after the attack, massive structural damage and raging fires.
How could the wires and explosives survive and function perfectly to carry out such a demolition?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I say anywhere that either of the twin towers were brought down by a conventional controlled demolition ??
No I didn't and clearly you haven't looked at anything regarding what Dr Judy Wood actually said about how the towers might have been brought down because her theory doesn't involve conventional controlled demolition demolition all.
comment by The Noble Lord Flash (U8334)
posted 50 minutes ago
As for 2.3 trillion thing. Is that linked to the 'destroying the buildings, thus destroying the evidence of extremely high level fraud' theory?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea Flash, I don't claim to have all the answers but it is an amazing coincidence that the Pentagon got attacked a day after announcing that it can't account for 2.3 trillion dollars.
Regarding Building 7 it housed a few government organisations including the CIA as far as I know. It was a very important building, although again that's not something that gets too much coverage in the media.
Sign in if you want to comment
On the anniversary of the 2 towers.........
Page 6 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 11/9/14
Has anyone come up with a plausible explanation as to why tower 7 collapsed? No plane hit it, it used to house a lot of important financial and security agencies offices and apparently fell down because the other two towers were hit by aeroplanes. Seems a bit weird to me.
posted on 11/9/14
cowboy builders?
posted on 11/9/14
But it has to be an accounting error or poor tracking, it's not as if someone pulled up to the Federal Reserve in 8 million armored trucks and drove it away.
posted on 11/9/14
Ha.
posted on 11/9/14
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 8 minutes ago
I have a hard time with a lot of these theories as they seem to far fetched, vague and don;t hold water. For example, what has Rumsfeld admitting poor accounting in the military got to do with 9/11.
--------------------------------
You would put being unable to account for 2.3 trillion dollars down to bad accountancy ??
Do you realise how much money that is ??
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, thats what the whole point of Rumsfeld's speach was about wasn't it? Recognising that there was too much money wasted and unaccounted for in the military.
Again, there seems to be no link to 9/11 other than this speech happening the prior day.
I'm not doubting that a lot of that money could be being siphoned off into the hands of the corrupt, merely pointing out the tenuous links between one story and another that often leads these conspiracy theories to have little weight and actually muddy the waters even more and make the truth harder to come by.
posted on 11/9/14
Sorry i said tower 8 earlier. it was tower 7
here is footage of what looks like a controlled explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI
here is tower 7 standing when the news were reporting that it had colapsed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
posted on 11/9/14
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 8 minutes ago
I have a hard time with a lot of these theories as they seem to far fetched, vague and don;t hold water. For example, what has Rumsfeld admitting poor accounting in the military got to do with 9/11.
--------------------------------
You would put being unable to account for 2.3 trillion dollars down to bad accountancy ??
Do you realise how much money that is ??
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, thats what the whole point of Rumsfeld's speach was about wasn't it? Recognising that there was too much money wasted and unaccounted for in the military.
Again, there seems to be no link to 9/11 other than this speech happening the prior day.
I'm not doubting that a lot of that money could be being siphoned off into the hands of the corrupt, merely pointing out the tenuous links between one story and another that often leads these conspiracy theories to have little weight and actually muddy the waters even more and make the truth harder to come by.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough I hear what you're saying about muddying the waters.
All I'm saying is that it's an amazing coincidence that on September 10th the Pentagon announces that it can't account for 2.3 trillion dollars and then on September 11th the Pentagon is attacked in a supposed terrorist attack and everyone suddenly forgets about the missing trillions.
posted on 11/9/14
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 17 minutes ago
Has anyone come up with a plausible explanation as to why tower 7 collapsed? No plane hit it, it used to house a lot of important financial and security agencies offices and apparently fell down because the other two towers were hit by aeroplanes. Seems a bit weird to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Building 7 only had fires on a couple of it's floors. Apparently that was enough for it to suddenly collapse in on itself in something exactly resembling a controlled demolition.
First time that's ever happened to any steel building anywhere in the world.
The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention Building 7. That's how they got round explaining it.
posted on 11/9/14
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 17 minutes ago
Has anyone come up with a plausible explanation as to why tower 7 collapsed? No plane hit it, it used to house a lot of important financial and security agencies offices and apparently fell down because the other two towers were hit by aeroplanes. Seems a bit weird to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Building 7 only had fires on a couple of it's floors. Apparently that was enough for it to suddenly collapse in on itself in something exactly resembling a controlled demolition.
First time that's ever happened to any steel building anywhere in the world.
The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention Building 7. That's how they got round explaining it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
check the links a couple of comments above.
'First time that's ever happened to any steel building anywhere in the world.'
well besides tower 1 and tower 2, ahem
posted on 11/9/14
Is Fappageddon real?
Why I haven't I seen it yet?
posted on 11/9/14
As I said on another article I would recommend checking out Dr Judy Wood who is a former professor of mechanical engineering and she wrote a book entitled "Where did the Towers go?".
It basically questions how two steel buildings the size of World Trade Centre 1 and 2 could for the most part essentially be turned into dust. I've watched a couple of her lectures on YouTube and it makes fascinating and shocking viewing.
posted on 12/9/14
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 10 hours, 36 minutes ago
As I said on another article I would recommend checking out Dr Judy Wood who is a former professor of mechanical engineering and she wrote a book entitled "Where did the Towers go?".
It basically questions how two steel buildings the size of World Trade Centre 1 and 2 could for the most part essentially be turned into dust. I've watched a couple of her lectures on YouTube and it makes fascinating and shocking viewing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankie
In support of the 2300 billion theory. There's also a school of thought that in destroying the towers a lot of evidence to fraud etc was being destroyed with them.
But i also believe it served lots of purposes......
Including new laws. Financial opportunities and even for those who have seen the long kiss goodnight, a fund raiser.
If you haven't seen that film, watch it you'll notice the part I'm referring to immediately.
posted on 12/9/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/9/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/9/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/9/14
Before impact on the tower the second plane was measured at flying at about 500 mph which is another major anomaly as that type of plane can only achieve that speed at a mucher higher altitude where the air density is significantly less.
At near sea level and that descent that speed would have been impossible to achieve for that aircraft.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html
Also the plane was coming in at an angle so to hit such a small target with such precision at that speed would have been incredibly difficult even for a very skilled and experienced pilot.
Apparently some guys with a few hours practice on flight simulators were able to do it perfectly first time round.
posted on 12/9/14
Twice.
posted on 12/9/14
Frankie
Have you seen the movie, 'The Long Kiss Goodnight'?
In that, (which was out in 1996) the scheme is a U.S agency concerned about budget cuts, plan to kill half a city, frame a 'known terrorist' and that way the senate won't cut the budget. It gets described as a fund raiser in that.
posted on 12/9/14
Flash I have seen that film but not for a few years. Will look out for that if I see it again.
posted on 12/9/14
As for 2.3 trillion thing. Is that linked to the 'destroying the buildings, thus destroying the evidence of extremely high level fraud' theory?
posted on 12/9/14
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 15 hours, 15 minutes ago
Has anyone come up with a plausible explanation as to why tower 7 collapsed? No plane hit it, it used to house a lot of important financial and security agencies offices and apparently fell down because the other two towers were hit by aeroplanes. Seems a bit weird to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was severely damaged by debris from the towers falling and had been burning for hours, the FDNY were concerned about the structural integrity and evacuated it after exterior walls showed signs of deformation. It was a BBC reporter that claimed it had collapsed 30 mins before the event but at that time it was shrouded in dust and smoke due to the tower collapse so couldnt be seen.
posted on 12/9/14
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 14 hours, 32 minutes ago
As I said on another article I would recommend checking out Dr Judy Wood who is a former professor of mechanical engineering and she wrote a book entitled "Where did the Towers go?".
It basically questions how two steel buildings the size of World Trade Centre 1 and 2 could for the most part essentially be turned into dust. I've watched a couple of her lectures on YouTube and it makes fascinating and shocking viewing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the footage of the towers after the attack, massive structural damage and raging fires.
How could the wires and explosives survive and function perfectly to carry out such a demolition?
posted on 12/9/14
It was a BBC reporter that claimed it had collapsed 30 mins before the event but at that time it was shrouded in dust and smoke due to the tower collapse so couldnt be seen.
--------------------------------
Actually Building 7 could be seen quite clearly in the background as the BBC reporter claimed it had collapsed.
BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TW…: http://youtu.be/6mxFRigYD3s
posted on 12/9/14
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 14 hours, 32 minutes ago
As I said on another article I would recommend checking out Dr Judy Wood who is a former professor of mechanical engineering and she wrote a book entitled "Where did the Towers go?".
It basically questions how two steel buildings the size of World Trade Centre 1 and 2 could for the most part essentially be turned into dust. I've watched a couple of her lectures on YouTube and it makes fascinating and shocking viewing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the footage of the towers after the attack, massive structural damage and raging fires.
How could the wires and explosives survive and function perfectly to carry out such a demolition?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I say anywhere that either of the twin towers were brought down by a conventional controlled demolition ??
No I didn't and clearly you haven't looked at anything regarding what Dr Judy Wood actually said about how the towers might have been brought down because her theory doesn't involve conventional controlled demolition demolition all.
posted on 12/9/14
comment by The Noble Lord Flash (U8334)
posted 50 minutes ago
As for 2.3 trillion thing. Is that linked to the 'destroying the buildings, thus destroying the evidence of extremely high level fraud' theory?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea Flash, I don't claim to have all the answers but it is an amazing coincidence that the Pentagon got attacked a day after announcing that it can't account for 2.3 trillion dollars.
Regarding Building 7 it housed a few government organisations including the CIA as far as I know. It was a very important building, although again that's not something that gets too much coverage in the media.
Page 6 of 8
6 | 7 | 8