Bin Laden himself said in a tape that the towers collapsing was unexpected, and he was surprised to see that.

In an alternative universe somewhere, the WTC didn't collapse. The deaths were limited to the impact floors and smoke inhalation in above floors. The fire was put out and the building repaired to look like new. This is how Bin Laden must have envisioned the attack.

Why then did they fly the planes so high into the building? The lower the impact, the higher the death toll. So it doesn't make sense from a terrorist standpoint.


.... Unless they wanted to minimize the death toll by striking high and allowing most to evacuate, but still having enough deaths and images of the towers collapsing to control voters for twenty years.

Did some elaborate conspiracy take place in which CIA black ops snuck in and blew the WTC up? NOT TOO FUCKING LIKELY. However that's not to say there wasn't some level of conspiracy taking place. Why go through all that elaborate planning when they could simply pick up on a planned attack and allow it to go down without interfering? I for one think they knew what was coming and left the gate wide open for it. There's plenty of documentation out there to support the opinion that they simply overlooked what they knew was coming, knowing full well what they could get away with in the wake of the disaster by manipulating the fear of the people. :2 cents::2 cents:

:1orglaugh

they were not on scene of #7 , they were told to STOP fighting the fire. ANY fire you STOP fighting burns uncontrollobly , no flaw in my thinking at all , unless you think you can control a fire by not fighting it..

not true, they were pulled from the building

watching it burn

nothing for them to do because they were told to stop fighting it..

yes i can dispute it, watch ... " it was not a major fire until they stopped fighting it "

see that wasnt hard. :winkwink:

he also said he never had anything to do with it at the beginning

lesson #1 don't trust murderous terrorists :winkwink:

true , but then again in an alternate universe everything that could happen has happened
because the target is wtc , theres alot of other buildings in the area, in order to ensure you actually hit the towers with max damage its nearly impossible to fly in any lower, they were already doing some pretty hard maneuvers

smokey... they were told to stop fighting the fire because there was nothing they could do to stop it... it was out of control before they stopped...

And that I got straight from a fire chief.

It's funny how you think you deserve an explanation. No one cares whether you have doubts about anything. People who are more intelligent and more important that you, who had more to lose and/or gain from 9/11, are satisfied almost 7 years after the fact. At this point, anyone with 'open questions' has either failed to do any actual research (ie not aggregating the insanity of various sociopathic blogs) or is simply suffering from some deep rooted psychological problem based in an irrational fear of authority, depression, etc.

You, judging by your lack of idependent thought (or even rational, logical thought), will never be 'satisfied'. You will use post-dictive, illogical arguments to engage in endless circular debate for all time. No one knows why you 'need' this - why you 'need' 9/11 (specifically building 7) to be anything other than what it was (a building falling down) that's your own personal issue.

Oh right..."easy answer". :1orglaugh

"Mistakes made". :1orglaugh

Here's your holes. Forget about all the other bullshit.

To me, it's the same as the JFK assassination. We speculate too much and general BS and not enough about specifics: put a dude in a tower with a Manlicher Carcano single action rifle and see if he can pull 3/3 hits on a moving target.

Answer is...he can't.

Same as this 911 BS. Forget about all the crazy stories and focus on the main fact: a small commuter plane doesn't answer the transponder and in 10 minutes F-16's are all over its ass; 2 years later 4 commerical airliners do the same and NOTHING is done.

Cause "mistakes" were made.

Uh huh.

I repeat because the military did not track domestic flights (they may or may not track them now)...because of confusion among the civilians tracking the flights as to what was actually occuring...the military was not notified in a timely manner. Yes something was done once the military was notified...they scrambled jets...but it was to late for them to do anything.

As for getting off three shots and hits it has been duplicated multiple times and true it was a moving target but it was in a straight line which reduces the skill level required.

picking a moving target is not that hard for someone who does a lot of shooting. especially someone who's shot a lot of running game and knows how to lead a shot. jfk's car wasn't moving half as fast as a deer running at wide open, and there's plenty of people who can pick that shit perfect damn near every time. to make 3 out of 3 shots is far from unrealistic...

You should tell that General Wesley Clark, Major General Albert Stubblebine, Col. Ronald D. Ray and others:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

I guess you believe that:
FDR didn`t know about incoming attack on Pearl Harbor
Winston Churchill didn`t know about incoming attack on Coventry
Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK
There was MD weapon in Iraq

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

it simply wasnt , when they pulled the firefighters out the fire was limited to 2 floors and a very small area. i think the part you forget is that you judge your ability to fight a fire by the resources you have to fight it. It doesnt mean the fire was uncontrollable it means their ability to fight it was severely hampered

All the resources were tied up in search and rescue for the building with actual humans inside , not the building with no people inside.

Could they have put it out if they had all resources available to them ? most certainly, you dont have to agree, but you have to admit you have never seen a building collapse like that from that sort of fire ever, because under normal circumstances it would never happen, even under similar circumstances i have never seen it happen, seems awfully strange a building designed for use in emergency would crumble easier than any building i have ever seen




THIS is a major fire ( that did not collapse the building )

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel...XlueXXhenv.jpg


THIS is not a major fire that DID collapse a building

http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7firesnorthface.jpg

ask any fire chief if they notice a difference

Why must you act like the other whacked out conspiracy lunatics and just ignore the structural damage caused by the two WTC towers falling on it. There are lots of pics of important structural parts torn away...to make it hard for anyone except the true believers to ignore. Why are you ignoring all that.

Just shut up already and stop repeating the mantra about how can a fire bring down WTC 7. How convenient to ignore the structural damage outlined in the first NIST Report... There is no cover up; look at what they are working on right now: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Appro...ary12Dec06.pdf

From Wikipedia:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[3] The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including: damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floor, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[3] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure. The sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system. The sprinkler floor level controls had just a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Loss of power to the fire pump or other damage to the structure would have meant no functioning sprinklers. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[26][27]

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[28] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[29][30] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6?10, 13?14, 19?22, and 29?30.[3] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[31] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[32] Around 3:30 pm, given that 7 World Trade Center was unstable and would possibly collapse, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[33][31] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse.

In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. Structural elements were exposed to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of collapse.[6]

The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse, but listed several issues requiring further investigation. FEMA made these findings:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

Plan view of collapse progression, with structural failure initiating on lower floors, on the east side of the building and vertical progression up to the east mechanical penthouse
Plan view of collapse progression, with structural failure initiating on lower floors, on the east side of the building and vertical progression up to the east mechanical penthouse

In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department?s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead a three-year, $16 million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center.[34] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[35]
Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11. From a news helicopter, ABC News captured footage of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, including a glimpse of a gash, extending approximately 10 stories.
Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11. From a news helicopter, ABC News captured footage of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, including a glimpse of a gash, extending approximately 10 stories.

NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[36][3] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[37] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][38]

A progress report was released in June 2004, outlining NIST's working hypothesis.[39][3] The hypothesis, which was reiterated in a June 2007 status update, is that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[40]

NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 World Trade Center in 2008.[41] The NIST is utilizing ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to initiating events.[42] The investigation of 7 World Trade Center has been delayed for a number of reasons, including that NIST staff who had been working on 7 World Trade Center were assigned full-time from June 2004 to September 2005, to work on the investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.[43] In June 2007, he explained, "We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible. The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[40]
BMCC's Fiterman Hall was heavily damaged from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, and is undergoing deconstruction.
BMCC's Fiterman Hall was heavily damaged from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, and is undergoing deconstruction.

Some conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition.[44][45] NIST has "found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event". In its final report on building 7, they would "like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements".[43]

In regards to the hijacked planes ... some insist that Flight 93 (the one that crashed in western Pennsylvania) was SHOT DOWN by the U.S. military...

When debating the background of the 911 attacks, it's best to look at the past ... in my view Pearl Harbor and 911 have much in common - the U.S. government had some knowledge of them before-hand and yet "allowed" the events to happen anyways for the government's benefit.

Pearl Harbor to justify entering WWII.

911 to justify invading Iraq; restricting people's rights.

Much of the PATRIOT Act was basically on the shelf ready to go - all that was needed was the right opportunity, which 911 provided.

And that's nothing compared to what could be coming - internment camps are ready to go ... if there's a "nuclear" attack, even if tiny, it's highly likely that long-term martial law will be declared by the Feds (something that traditionally could only be done by the states), travel extremely restricted, and many tens / hundreds of thousands of people (Muslims and outspoken activists most likely) rounded up into internment camps.

Ron

OK, I am bleeding out... what is my next move, oh sire one?

Your view=pigshit.

BAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

I hope you're just pulling our leg. Because if you don't see any signs of collapse in that image you're fucking insane.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205
The steel framed outer section of that building very clearly collapsed leaving only the concrete framed core standing.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Let's all take a couple big sniffs of "Inside Job" Brand model glue and pretend all of the info on that link is more government lies, shall we?