Further to above I have searched high and low to find other buildings which have fallen directly down,into their own footprint (WT7) due to fire, or any other reason. I have found building collapsing for lots of reasons but none so far have fallen 100% straight down like WT7 did and turned to dust as they did it. Only theses which were demolished professionally.
I am not agreeing with any conspires theory's, I hate the idea, I just want to hear/see a reasonable explanation for what happened to WT7, not the twin towers
You cannot just pump water over several hundred metres without LARGE diameter hoses and LARGE pumps....through streets blocked by vehicles and debris...and even then it takes time to damp the fires and has to have men go into the building....and they were withdrawn because of the risk.
What risk ?
Here's a video of the building burning...and the damage you say was not done to it when parts of the other wt building collapsed onto it (yes, over 400 feet away....but wtc1 was over 1300 feet tall...and the perimeter columns struck wt7 as they fell)
And as for there being no other towers that have collapsed that way...there are not too many buildings that have LARGE fires raging UNFOUGHT for over 6 hours and which have had severe structural damage from debris falling from another building.
Note that wt7 was not built as it was when it fell....it was initially a much smaller building built large on the same foundations as the small one.
Note the video/s show the collapse was in three sections.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
Perhaps a read of the below magazine article may be more informative.
JTS 's links and his arguements I have to commend.
I as a mere layman do not know anything about structures, and what happens to them.
But being hit by a plane with a building that high, is something that has probably never happened before, so nobody could really be that sure.
The way both buildings collapsed like packs of cards, I cannot understand that one.
Saying that I still do not think any conspiracy took place on that day.
On Saturday, July 28 1945, the empire state building was struck by a B25 bomber.
The building survived. The fuel capacity of said bomber was 670 US gallons (about 500 UK gallons). The maximum weight of the B25 at take-off was 41800 pounds.
The aircraft that was flown into the WT building had a capacity of 23980 US gallons. The maximum take-off weight is 395000 pounds.
If you really want conspiracy theory website contains it all.
Have fun.
The buildings collapsed because of catastrophic structural failure caused by sustained heat from fires (just a personal belief)
I know many here think I am mad for following this one, but still can not help but think that some thing is wrong here, as do many other mad people
:giveup:
i must be as max777 say's, a conspiracy theorist, because i know absolutely that the burning of the german parliament building in the 1930's was an inside job cos i was told at school. the gulf of tonkin incident that took america into the vietnam war never took place (freedom of information u.s. archive), kennedy's head first is thrown forward and then sidewards (film from the grassy knoll) proving the warren commision report that l.h. was the sole gunman to be bollox and mohammed attah's green saudi passport found unsinged at ground zero implicating him as the lead suspect in the 9/11 atrocity is bollox (cbnc, fox news and cnn)
the b.b.c. interviewed john towers, security adviser to hmg and employed by a israeli security company said on the day of 7/7 that he was conducting an exercise at exactly the same time at exactly the same locations on the same day and that he had to go from "exercise to real time and that made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up" b.b.c. 7th july that year ! fukin coincidental or what ?
but hey, i gotta give proof for everything i say and when i do no fuker believes me. this economic collapse is the inevitable consequence of lies, fraud and corruption and i dont need to qualify it or my qualifications to anyone. you will experience the consequences.
I feel sorry for people who subscribe to this sort of garbage. I would say that anyone who believes it is stupid, but I cannot make such a wide ranging and sweeping statement. I know quite a few people who geniunely believe that the moon landings were faked, I wouldn't refer to them as stupid though - just guillable and easily misled. I also know people who do not believe there are sattelites in space and that think the Titanic was an insurance job.
I suppose it is not to dissimilar from Holocaust denial - despite all the overwhelming evidence that something is true, there will always be someone who can "prove" that it is not.
As for the WTC - it was hit by a plane and collapsed as a result... or then again was it aliens that did it, I can never remember.
:giggle: