7 Is Exploding

Can anyone who supports this conspiracy idea answer any of these questions?

 

Building 1 or 2 (which ever it was that parts exploded out of
to start the fire(s) in Building 7) fell on itself so it couldn't
start the fires in #7 -- this is proof of U.S. Government
conspiracy?

 

When some of you have the time, you might want to look at major bridge failures, which, BTW, do not include the collapse of the KY river bridge at 'Brooklyn', south of Lexington on US-68, and located just a few miles from my home, near the Daniel Boone Tunnel in 1955 under the weight of only one food service delivery truck, or any of the Katrina related failures, just to see how many ways something designed and seemingly so strong, can fail.

Here is a link from 'Wiki'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_disasters

Here is a coupla' links with pictures of the 'Brooklyn Bridge' collapse, and the replacement bridge built in 1956.

http://www.jessamineco.com/tourism/guidebook/guidebook.htm
http://www.bridgestunnels.com/index.php?catid=59&photos=0


Ed

 

I think you may be talking about towers 1 and 2, but WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft and had relatively small fires (compare to some of the images Rufus linked to of totally burned out buildings) and collapsed straight down on itself.

 

The aliens took down building 7. That is the only explanation. The black helocopters have been ruled out.

 

WTC 7 was not only damaged by fire. I just read an article that said 25% of the lower 10 floors were severely damaged from the debris of towers 1 and 2 collapsing.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

 

Heres just one contradiction in this official story.

Larry Silverstein, in the PBS documentary video I mention earlier, says they made the decision to 'pull' the building. Never mind that just a couple of minutes later in the same video we hear demolition crews use the term pull to refer to bringing down one of the remaining structures, Silverstein recants and says by pull the building, he meant pull the firefighters out of the building. OH REALLY?

From the Popular Mechanics article:

Was there firefighting in the building or not?

 

So who was it?

 

Were firefighters fighting fires at all? Weren't they focused more on peoples safety that day? Weren't they more focused on rescuing and clearing people from the buildings? I don't think it has to be a contradiction. Firefighters in the building does not necessarily mean there was firefighting taking place. Firefighters do more than fight fires.

 

Maybe the firefighters were setting charges. But then it may have been Miss Scarlett in the green room with the candle stick.

 

Apparently, it was Larry Silverstein. He had building 7 wired with explosives just in case. People were not excited enough about two commercial jets flying into the twin towers, the twin towers collapsing, another commercial jet flying into the Pentagon, another one crashing into a field in Pennsylvania, and terrorists being behind it, so they had to "pull" building 7.

 

This was the response put out by the state department regarding Silverstein's comment:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

 

James,

I am no expert, but I would suggest there may be a difference between containing fires and fighting fires.

 

Brother, I have to admit that that seems like doublethink to me. But we must all draw our own conclusions in the matter. I don't think anything is ever going to be done about it anyway, so I suppose if there was a conspiracy, they got away with it.

 

Conspiracy Theory is one of my favorite movies. I'm easily excited by conspiracy theories, (I want to believe), enough to make me a bit ashamed to admit it. However, this one just seems too far-fetched. I feel silly arguing over semantics, but I just don't buy the theory.

 

The article discusses why Building 7 collapsed, but it doesn't really address how Building 7 fell in on itself, rather than simply falling down.

Regards,
BiR

 

Not even these two paragraphs?

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

 

I used to be the opposite. I had no desire to question the official story. I saw the attacks on TV and I knew that Osama bin Laden was the devil and his al Kayda crew were responsible. But at the insistence of my wife, I finally sat down and started to look at this issue, and I think so much of what I assumed to be fact was shown to be nothing of the sort. The contradictory stories and the swiftness with which the evidence was swept away, contradicting every forensic principle, only makes me more sure that something else happened that day. Kind of like David Copperfield making the statue of Liberty disappear. I don't know what he did, but it wasn't that.

 

Funny how a kook and a skeptic can end up with unexpected views on the same issue.