Never had to remember your partners birthday or other significant event without a reminder ?

It's how you keep a relationship alive, or suffer in hell for however long it takes for her to forgive you, which is generally never.

And as the US wants Al Queda as their ally its just fun to remind them that Al Queda carried out 911, I'd still really like a serious answer to my question though.

I fully expect no one to actually provide an intelligent answer though.

Happy giving up your constitution day guys.........

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Well, here it's 911 already.

And, in celebration for you supporters of the official story, please explain this.
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v16415017FADebtjf?h1=WTC7

I really want to understand how WTC 7 collapsed as this has never happened either before or after with this type of building.
As, either there is a scientific explination, or a conspiracy theory explination. I'd be thrilled to hear a scientific theory that will account for this building collapsing the way it did that makes sense.

Why no audio? Some will say because there are detonation noises, others will say because there are detonation noises.

There's lots of other video, including some of the owner saying ' it had to be pulled '

I'm just looking for a non conspiracy theory as to why it fell down as it did.

If a building is demolished the way 7 was, sorry, the way conspiracy theory's suggest it was, then explosives must have been placed earlier.
Then that only supports conspiracy theories.

So, how did this building collapse in a scientific way, naturally, as it did ?

And why, may I ask, would someone implode a building that did not have the same symbolic and national significance as the twin towers? If the goal was to incite hatred and support for war against middle eastern countries, wouldn't the twin towers be enough? Why bother with WTC7?

also if it was explosive why are almost all the windows intact? they would break once the explosion went off. which we would clearly see because it is zoomed in.

They demolish buildings all over the world thatway, what's the conspiracy here?

Quote from Forbin :

And why, may I ask, would someone implode a building that did not have the same symbolic and national significance as the twin towers? If the goal was to incite hatred and support for war against middle eastern countries, wouldn't the twin towers be enough? Why bother with WTC7?

Conspiracy theorists don't see the infeasibility or futility of things, they just see that something might have happened or cannot be explained easily therefore it must have happened. It's like the plane that hit tower two being fitted with missiles to fire moments before impact, or the local amateur dramatics group in the Boston bombings. Or the thousands of people that would need to be involved in something on this scale. Or do they think Bush and Cheney went round in ninja suits like Burns and Smithers, but with silenced pistols afterwards?
They could do all that but they couldn't plant WMDs in the middle East to justify the war there.

The fact that these highly vocal conspiracy theorists are still alive to spout their conspiracies is pretty conclusive proof that they're wrong.

Do you really think that a government prepared to murder over 5000 of its own innocent citizens would think twice about bumping off a few nerds as well?




I like the explanation from South Park: they don't deny it because it suits them to have certain people think they *might* be capable of it.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Well, here it's 911 already.

And, in celebration for you supporters of the official story, please explain this.
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v16415017FADebtjf?h1=WTC7

I really want to understand how WTC 7 collapsed as this has never happened either before or after with this type of building.
As, either there is a scientific explination, or a conspiracy theory explination. I'd be thrilled to hear a scientific theory that will account for this building collapsing the way it did that makes sense.

A plane flying into a building coupled with the fuel from that plane (which happens to burn at a very high temperature) may just have weakened the structure a teeny bit?

Quote from Bmxtwins :

A plane flying into a building coupled with the fuel from that plane (which happens to burn at a very high temperature) may just have weakened the structure a teeny bit?

WTC7 was not one of the twin towers. It was a much smaller building.

Thank you Forbin.

And for those screaming conspiracy theory.

I would like a rational scientific explanation for WTC 7, shouldn't be hard for you to come up with, I'm not looking for ridiculuse ideas like it was demolished.
As that's a conspiracy theory.........

The video shows its completely natural collapse, it was standard construction, wasn't hit by either a plane or by the towers when they pancaked in an identical manner.

And as an answer to your question Forbin, check who was in the building as to why.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

I'd be thrilled to hear a scientific theory that will account for [WTC7] collapsing the way it did that makes sense.

"As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[34] and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon."

"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 floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[35][36]"

"At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[41] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building."

"...the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[13]

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7 ... enter#9.2F11_and_collapse)

Ah yes, the NIST report.
I did say scientific, not fantasy.
They actually contradict themselves repeatedly,

"So why does NIST claim that the shear studs broke because of differential thermal expansion?

To understand this point, you need to understand that NIST’s theory is an almost totally computer-based theory. NIST fed various variables into a computer program, which then supposedly told it how WTC 7 would have reacted to its fires. So, what did NIST feed into its computer that caused it to say that the steel would have expanded so much more than the concrete slab that all of the shear studs would have broken? The answer is given in this bland statement:

No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.

When I first read this statement, I had to rub my eyes. Surely, I thought, I have mis-read the statement, because a few pages earlier, NIST had said: “differential thermal expansion occurred between the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire.” The “composite floor,” by definition, is the steel beams made composite with the floor slab by means of the shear studs. So NIST had clearly said, in stating that the composite floor had been subjected to fire, that both the steel beams and the concrete slab had been heated.

But then in the eye-rubbing passage, NIST said: When doing its computer simulation, it told the computer that only the steel beams had been heated; the concrete floor slab was not. [54]

So of course the steel beams would have expanded, while the floor slabs stayed stationary, thereby causing the sheer studs to break, after which the steel beams could expand like crazy and bump into Column 79, which then causes the whole building to come down."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/t ... llapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

Perhaps you should find a civil (maybe mechanical) engineer to explain it to you?

I don't think they teach strength of materials nor thermal expansion in IT school.

Quote from Forbin :

Perhaps you should find a civil (maybe mechanical) engineer to explain it to you?

I don't think they teach strength of materials nor thermal expansion in IT school.

My father just happens to be the fire chief in Connecticut just a little ways from NYC.

He would be able to confirm that a building can collapse while on fire and that in fact sprinkler systems can fail.

Then again, so could anyone with a reasonable amount of knowledge about combustion.

answer to this whole thread is simple, they fell down

Quote from CodeLyoko1 :

answer to this whole thread is simple, they fell down

Quote from Forbin :

Perhaps you should find a civil (maybe mechanical) engineer to explain it to you?

I don't think they teach strength of materials nor thermal expansion in IT school.

Well, over 2000 architects and engineers, people actually fully qualified in the field have requested an enquiry into the false science of the NIST report.

But, for most people ignoring the questions raised is easy.

After all, buildings always fall in free fall, in exactly the way shown in the many videos, when there's a fire, don't they........

Happens all the time, and you can see what an inferno WTC 7 was, it's clearly shown on the videos.

Let's take a look at some absolute facts regarding 911.

A good rule about crime is 'track the $', so let's take a look at the money trail. This is all actual fact, no 'looney theories' that the 'official report' disagrees with. Even if the people giving you the 'official report' say later that it's all completely untrue.

On 10 September, 1 day before 911 Rumsfeld announced the following; "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

The next morning, 911 occurred. Now, again the following fact is interesting, who identified the missing money ?

The 'Plane' that hit the Pentagon just happened to be surprisingly specfic, in actual fact; "A total of 189 people died on the hijacked airline that flew into the Pentagon, 125 of those individuals were working inside the west part of the Pentagon building. The plane struck the US Navy’s Telecommunications Operations Center, chief of naval operations offices, and help desk operations within the US Army’s Information Management Support Center. A large majority of the people killed are those believed to have been conducting audits on the missing money Rumsfeld had announced the day before." http://nwthinkers.com/pentagon ... 911/#sthash.E83R7PGt.dpuf

Now lets take a look at the vaults under WTC1 & 2; "The fate of nearly $1 billion worth of gold, silver and other precious metals stored beneath the WTC before 9-11 continues to baffle many.

To this day, only $230 million has officially been accounted for. All of that was retrieved from the previously mentioned, two-level, 6,000-square-foot vault maintained by the Bank of Nova Scotia. They reportedly lost $200 million in gold as a result of the attacks. However, other estimates suggest there was an additional $750-million worth of precious metals that may have been stored in other vaults or hurriedly evacuated from the Nova Scotia vault before the skyscrapers came down.

According to a Nov. 1, 2001 article in The London Times: “The Comex metals trading division of the New York Mercantile Exchange kept 3,800 gold bars—weighing 12 tons and worth more than $100 million—in vaults in the building’s [apparently Building 5—Ed.] basement. Comex also held almost 800,000 ounces of gold there on behalf of others with a value of about $220 million. It also held more than 102 million ounces of silver, worth [an estimated] $430 million.”

The Times piece also reported that some of the recovered gold may have been found outside this vault.

“The gold, which was discovered . . . was being transported through the basement of the building on the morning of Sept. 11,” reads the article. “Recovery workers reached a service tunnel and discovered a 10-wheel [truck] and a number of cars [that] had been crushed by falling steel.”

Another article appearing in The New York Daily News around that same time corroborates this story:

“Sources said the gold was found in a delivery tunnel under 5 World Trade Center.”

If these accounts are true, they strongly conflict with the official story, which alleges that all the recovered metals were found inside the Bank of Nova Scotia vault under WTC 4. This has led some to speculate that insiders with short-term advanced knowledge of the attacks made a frantic effort to transfer the treasures by truck to a safe, undisclosed location."

And now lets look at WTC 7 and why that 'collapsed', complete with 'official explinations' of its collapse. "You see, Building 7, which also housed field offices of the SEC, FBI, CIA, NSA among others, contained tons of information on corporate fraud that could, collectively, have constituted manifold ‘Enrons’ that would’ve put many, many individuals away for a few hundred years.

I suspect much of what Sibel Edmonds has been barred from disclosing has a lot to do with this information — fraud, laundering, gun-running, narcotics, etc. If one were to read between Sibel’s lines in the few interviews she gave before she was totally gagged, I believe this would all soon begin to ring true.

Similarly, the offices that were the target of the missile that struck the Pentagon were those of the auditors digging into the missing $2.6 trillion.

They were all killed in the strike. All records were destroyed. "
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/mysterious_building_7.htm

The above actual facts are all easily confirmed, they are real facts, the organisations were all located there, the facts are all true.
911 of course still has a number of questions about it's 'facts', the 911 Commision have stated that their report was all lies, thats another actual fact.

Now, as another pointer, was their any financial trading that could give a clue towards a 'conspiracy theory' that suggests something untoward, i.e. Illegal activity ?
Lets let the facts speak for themselves;

"Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. The evidence of insider trading includes:
Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes

In each case, the anomalous purchases translated into large profits as soon as the stock market opened a week after the attack: put options were used on stocks that would be hurt by the attack, and call options were used on stocks that would benefit.

Put and call options are contracts that allow their holders to sell and buy assets, respectively, at specified prices by a certain date. Put options allow their holders to profit from declines in stock values because they allow stocks to be bought at market price and sold for the higher option price. The ratio of the volume of put option contracts to call option contracts is called the put/call ratio. The ratio is usually less than one, with a value of around 0.8 considered normal."
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

The only clear truth is that no one wants to look at it too closely, I wonder why ??????

Now you've written all this and put so much energy into believing but you have not submitted any proof.
Yes, a few links to "independant" blogs and so on, but you provided nothing that proves what you and many others are thinking.

I would be thankful if you could give further information on what REALLY happened.

greetz

der butz

In his mind, circumstantial evidence is proof.

Quote from Forbin :

In his mind, circumstantial evidence is proof.

Circumstancial bullshit, not evidence

I swear his mind works like this