Thread: No conspiracy to blow-up WTC 7

Originally Posted by Chimensch

The Empire State Building was hit by a bomber in the 1940s. There was a fire but it didn't collapse. I saw the documentary "Loose Change" and several others and a WTC architect said that they had allowed for a plane hitting the towers. There was also a clip of Larry Silverstein saying that they had decided to "pull" WTC 7. When I look at the video of WTC, I see a controlled demolition. It seems to me that people who don't want to admit the obvious will cling to any straw to avoid having to deal with the consequences of acknowledging what really happened.

Yah, And don't forget all that weight from KING KONG !

Well I really know bugger all about that incident, however, I was to understand that the "terrorists" had actually studied the structure or WTC and actually flew in on certain angles to do the most damage, and to bring the building down.

Also a modern aircraft, especially a jet, as I am to understand is what crashed into the WTC, is a lot faster than what a bomber would have been some 60 years ago.

But as I said, I don't know much, so could very well be mistaken.

So, if the government did it, they destroyed three towers for the sake of having an excuse to start a war?

What about the obvious documentation of the terrorists being behind the attacks, and the jetliner hijackings?

What this conspiracy implies is that the US government knew the attacks were being planned and coordinated efforts to add more chaos and destruction to what the terrorists were going to do.

In my opinion, the government had their excuse to go to war when the planes were hijacked and US citizens died as a result, no secret demolition mission required.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

In my opinion, the government had their excuse to go to war when the planes were hijacked and US citizens died as a result, no secret demolition mission required.

But if it was a "conspiracy" then wouldn't that mean the US govt paid, or assisted the "terroists" in hi-jacking the planes in the first place?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

So, if the government did it, they destroyed three towers for the sake of having an excuse to start a war?

I've seen "Loose Change" and several other videos and read a lot about 9/11. That said, I don't know who did it or why, just that the official story is not credible. Obviously, there would have had to be a lot of people involved and there is no end of speculation about how various people who were involved did benefit. For example, Larry Silverstein who was a new owner and had recently taken out a lot insurance. There was also the fact that the Twin Towers were full of asbestos and that the city benefited from having the towers knocked down in a "terror" attack rather than have to remove the asbestos or demolish the buildings, etc. There is just way too much strange about the official story for me to accept it and there are a lot of books on the subject, and resources on the Internet, for anyone who's curious.

There are only two conspiracy theories that I accept, the assassination of JFK and of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. Anyone who thinks that the government of the United States had a role in the 9-11 attacks is deluded IMO. BTW, I am not and have never been a supporter of the current administration.

What I meant by "documented terrorists" was that they were legitimately working to inflict terror, of their own accord.

And even if they were being supported by whatever "insider" the conspiracies are trying to promote, demolishing all three towers and killing 3,000 innocent people of many different nationalities is more than overkill.

It also seems like the terrorist organizations involved would have been a little off-put if we helped them perform these attacks, and then bombed their countries for it. Someone would have spoken up about it.

Edit: please don't get me wrong about all of this, I disagree whole heartedly with indiscriminate killing of all kinds, guerilla and organized military action alike, the conspiracy just doesn't add up IMHO.

One look at the source for the article is enough for me. The NYT is a left-wing newspaper, and as such will publish anything they think will put the current administration in a bad light. I'm with Bruno on this one, the missing (weight bearing) corner,and he heat made this collapse look controlled, when it really wasn't.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

The New York Times article (link in my first post) makes no mention of the supposed missing corner but does talk about a beam giving way on the 10th floor. In any case, we're not going to convince each other by pretending to be architects and engineers, so here's a quote from a real architect and engineer from the end of the above article:

”

I wouldn't assume anything about the members here if I were you!
We have a rather diverse crowd here and I am willing to bet that there are engineers and architects posting in this very thread. I won't assume it though!

Anyone here ever read anything about the plan to remove asbestos from the World Trade Centers and the cost of renovation of these old buildings? Also, cost of demolition. There were talks about the asbestos removal and rebuilding the electrical, electronic communication, and cooling systems long before 911. Costs were in the Billions. Over one billion just in asbestos abatement. Myself, I think someone found a cheaper way of doing it while making a very good long range profit.