Erie coincidence

it answers several structural collapse question crait. these people KNOW why the place went down not just try to figure it out from photos or videos posted by radicals who believe in secret cults dating back to the crusades.

and this is the FIRST question from http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm.

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

after this question there is a paragraph explaining exactly why a building that was designed to take a hit from a plane didnt take the hit. and there is NO picture. i encourage anyone who replies to my post to actually READ the investigations and articles please.

then you show a video of melting metal. what kind of metal is this crait that were seeing in this video? was it STEEL? do you know cause the vid doesnt explain. in fact its more likely to be ALUMINUM which melts at a lower temp as explained in the "youtube" vid. cause were all so fond of flinging it at each other like poo here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0&NR=1

i find it much more likely that large debris from a building took out wtc 7 than our government orchestrating an elaborte ruse to go to war. its TOO elaborate to be possible. but if you want more youtube poo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m ... re=related

thats because your too busy browsing noobtube to understand any other type of set up. its supposed to accompany a video called loosechange
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX3 ... re=related. which if you cant figure it out is a video saying 9/11 is set up.

debris WAS found at the pentagon as for the small holes thats found on this page http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 6#bigplane

and you are calling popular mechanics a site with just alot of WORDS? how about a full source page full of engineers and aviation experts? you know BACKED UP info NOT just some random individual puking all over the internet with what he FIGURES? what sounds more empty to you crait?

I do agree about the burning aluminum part because steel cant be melted by a jetfueled fire. It can weaken steel but not melt it.

I still dont see anything stating why the towers fell straight down though allistor, please explain.

I fear we may never know the truth.

The links provided do make an attempt to explain those events as they occurred on that day. However NONE of those engineers were there.

This guy was however http://www.william911.com/ William Rodriguez was employed as a maintenance worker at the WTC.
Rodriguez is the last person to exit the falling North Tower alive. His eye witness testimony supports the demolitions theory.

Jeff King Ph.D. an MIT research scientist states the dust cloud resulting from the building falling was the result of explosives and explains why.

I will spare you all the Youtube link but George W Bush is on record as stating that he saw the first plane hit the building.
As anyone that has researched the events of that day knows, W was in a classroom in Florida reading a book to children.

W states that he saw the first plane hit on TV because there was a TV on in the classroom and everyone was watching it. Fact is, no one saw the first plane hit on TV because that footage was not released until they next day. Also no one in that classroom was watching TV because they were watching W trying to read to children.

Why would George lie and say he saw the first plane hit the tower when he really didn't? Why did he refuse to testify under oath and on the record about what he knew about 9/11?

I lied. Here is the video for anyone interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

I am not saying W planned 911, but I bet he knows who did and that person does not live in a cave either.

[DarkPacMan77]

Shortly after 9/11, I think on the 11th(?), Osama Bin Laden released a video saying he had nothing to do with the attacks... later on, it appears he takes full responsibility for all of the attacks. Coincidence or plotted?

-DarkPacMan77-

i find it much more likely that large debris from a building took out wtc 7 than our government orchestrating an elaborte ruse to go to war. its TOO elaborate to be possible. but if you want more youtube poo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m ... re=related

t

i used to think exact same thing, until i found out WTC 3,4,5, and 6 had their steel base still standing AFTER hacing the WTC 1 and 2 fall of them
These things were right under WTC 1 and 2 and some parts of them survives, you could easily identify the buildings, but then WTC 7 which was so far away falls into itself.....
uhhh, coincidence? I THINK NOTTTTT
And trying to make since of " well WTC 3,4,5, and 6 were still standing AFTER having the WHOLE ENTIRE WTC 1 AND 2 FALL ON THEM" is just simply IGNORANT

so. why blow up wtc 7 and not 3, 4, 5 and 6?! what sense does that make? zero zilch. do you think it went something like this?

hey bush old pal i have a great idea. lets destroy buildings 1, 2, and 7. and just leave the others alone? uh ok.

what kind of INTELLIGENT sense does THAT make? to make it more realistic if ONE goes down with them? doubtful.

hate the government all you like im totally for it. there are plenty of REAL reasons to. like watergate. and lying about WMD's but dont go making SH*T up like these wack offs on youtube about the "illuminati" and the "NWO".

Paranoia is a disturbed thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat. sound familiar? sounds like these guys on youtube. secret organizations, plots, hidden messages its ridiculous. laughable even.

[crait]

it answers several structural collapse question crait. these people KNOW why the place went down not just try to figure it out from photos or videos posted by radicals who believe in secret cults dating back to the crusades.

and this is the FIRST question from http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm.

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

after this question there is a paragraph explaining exactly why a building that was designed to take a hit from a plane didnt take the hit. and there is NO picture. i encourage anyone who replies to my post to actually READ the investigations and articles please.

then you show a video of melting metal. what kind of metal is this crait that were seeing in this video? was it STEEL? do you know cause the vid doesnt explain. in fact its more likely to be ALUMINUM which melts at a lower temp as explained in the "youtube" vid. cause were all so fond of flinging it at each other like poo here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0&NR=1

i find it much more likely that large debris from a building took out wtc 7 than our government orchestrating an elaborte ruse to go to war. its TOO elaborate to be possible. but if you want more youtube poo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m ... re=related

thats because your too busy browsing noobtube to understand any other type of set up. its supposed to accompany a video called loosechange
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX3 ... re=related. which if you cant figure it out is a video saying 9/11 is set up.

debris WAS found at the pentagon as for the small holes thats found on this page http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 6#bigplane

I actually posted the wrong link for the one where I was talking about the first question. Sorryz. Lol.
I was refering to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html
So, let me restate that part with changes made to talk about the first question then it'll make sense!

  Code:

On http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html , the first question answered only responded by a single picture. We all know how easily pictures can be manipulated. I'm part of gfxBrew, C'mon. If it was a military plane with a pod or not, that wouldn't change people's opinion that 911 was an inside job. On their claim that the metal within the towers did not melt and didn't need to melt for a plane to take it down is completely stupid. They said it could dislodge the girters. Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvaKyxXUS-8&feature=related Yes, melting steel. And when they said why the WTC 7 fell hours after the two World Trade Centers fell is because of debri?! Lolzerz. What? And their answer to the question, "Why was the hole in the pentagon 16 feet wide when the plane was 125 feet wide?" was that one wing hit the ground and broke off and the other broke off once hitting the building. Please refer to this image: http://www.travelinlibrarian.info/911/WTCimages/pentagon.jpg Where are said wings?

Once you read this, you'll understand what I tried to say.

Ever play Jenga? Good game. Um, I can remove a piece at the bottom. You probably can too. Any peice. That's 30% of the bottom. Now, they said there was 25% of the building 7 taken out of the bottum. I find it hard to believe that the buildings only stood completely still hours after the Twin Towers fell.

[code]and you are calling popular mechanics a site with just alot of WORDS? how about a full source page full of engineers and aviation experts? you know BACKED UP info NOT just some random individual puking all over the internet with what he FIGURES? what sounds more empty to you crait?[/quote]
No, I'm saying just because you state source and say actual facts doesn't mean you're actuall answering a question.
If someone asked me what why the sky was blue and I told them, "The sky is blue." Then state my source, well, I would be right but I didn't answer the question and I'd sound like an idiot. They basically restated the question and sourced themselves.
They also asked a question and gave a list of facts that really had nothing to do with the question and never gave an answer.
If someone asked me, "What was the first president?" and I said told them the names of all the other presidents ever, that wouldn't make me right. I wouldn't have even answered their question. Again, I would look like an idiot.
What sounds empty to me? Their responses. They had no answers within them. And for these sites to say that they're Q&A? C'mon. That's just Q&RQ. Question and Restate Question.

so. why blow up wtc 7 and not 3, 4, 5 and 6?! what sense does that make? zero zilch. do you think it went something like this?

I was just explaining this to someone earlier today....

The government bought loads of shares of the building because it had insurance against terrorist attacks.
For the Twin Towers, the government bought the towers a week before and insured them with the same insurance.
Becuase the WTC7 was destroyed the owner got $861 million dollars and all the share holders got about $500 million dollars to split. All the money from this probably went towards the government.
Source: Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2002, http://homes.wsj.com/columnists_com/bri ... ricks.html

Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse. The Los Angeles Times reported that "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. 3 Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports -- reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.

Source: http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/terrorism/
What does this mean? A whole bunch of the government's debt was lost because the files and financial reports were destroyed within the building.

Crait you forgot to mention that Larry Silverstien is on a PBS special stating that he made the decision to "pull" the building Pull is short for "pull down" in other words demolish it " http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pull-down". If he was referring to people he would have said "Pull out" as this phrase is never shortened and always applies to people.

If we ignore the reason why the buildings fell and look at who benefited from the events of that day then the entire motive for the collapse makes sense.

Silverstiein leased the building for 99 years because the port authority that owns it could not make money off the buildings. The offices were mostly empty(not rented) and they were expensive to heat and cool and were full of asbestos (a substance known to cause cancer in the state of California). The asbestos clean up would have cost over a billion dollars, far more than the building was worth and since no one was renting...really what other options would make sense? Do I think Silverstien orchestrated the events? No, but I bet he knows who did!

One of the companies that cleaned up ground zero is called "CDI" They also cleaned up the Oklahoma City Federal building. here is a link to their site www.controlled-demolition.com/ The name is not a coincidence.

To anyone reading...

WAKE UP!! On 9/11, 3 buildings fell neatly into their own footprint. Buildings do not consistently fall neatly into their own footprint. Controlled demolition teams would not exist if they did, think about it.

To date no one has been fired or sued for the failures that allowed the events to occur AND the engineers that designed the towers are just as puzzled today as to why they fell that way.

The cover-up is obvious what isn't is what happens next.

so. why blow up wtc 7 and not 3, 4, 5 and 6?! what sense does that make? zero zilch. do you think it went something like this?

hey bush old pal i have a great idea. lets destroy buildings 1, 2, and 7. and just leave the others alone? uh ok.

what kind of INTELLIGENT sense does THAT make? to make it more realistic if ONE goes down with them? doubtful.

hate the government all you like im totally for it. there are plenty of REAL reasons to. like watergate. and lying about WMD's but dont go making SH*T up like these wack offs on youtube about the "illuminati" and the "NWO".

Paranoia is a disturbed thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat. sound familiar? sounds like these guys on youtube. secret organizations, plots, hidden messages its ridiculous. laughable even.

NWO is fake?
O RLY?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo
Oh wait, OUR F*CKING PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED IT, yah thats just totally fake
Well they pulled 7 because it was too far away to get damaged, the others they didnt worry about.
Also they say that there were top secret files stored in the servers located in WTC 7

What also does not make sense is that building 7 had just been refitted and housed the Major's "Emergency Response Bunker"
Basically a command and control center with it's own power supply, air supply and accomodations. It was also in the perfect spot to observe the events of 9/11.

As far as I know Guliani did not have the balls to man it up that day. It cost 13 million dollars to build this unused space. What a waste of money.

http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpr ... %E2%80%9D/

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/elitewatch_7wtc.html