NO scientific basis for official theory of tower collapse.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 5/11/2006, 12:59 pm

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

this is the paper that is going to change everything.

Post by **xjsb125** » 5/11/2006, 8:37 pm

Was the text in this paper used for the theory provided in the "Loose Change" documentary?

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 5/13/2006, 5:12 pm

no, this paper was written after loose change came out.

it's still relatively unknown.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 5/15/2006, 6:57 am

I offer another suggestion instead. Keeping in line with above paper. I won't argue against it because I don't have the knowledge base to do so.

Official line is that the towers collapsed due to fire. Maybe yes maybe no
If (at least 7 WTC) was collapsed due to planted explosives ( I believe this to be the only building likely to have suffered this), if there were still people trapped inside but unreachable and the building was in danger of imminent collapse domino style. You have a choice of condemning 100? people to dominoing New York. I don't think I'd like to be in those shoes making the choice. Then the critics say, what is human life over property? Counter response, a dominoing NY skyline is more threatening than 100 human lives etc etc etc.

Controlled detonation written over as fire related causes far less ripples and debate and headaches. My other thought on this is that a controlled demoltion takes quite a bit of pre work. Now myabe the best in the game might be able to do it in such short notice but I dunno whether they would have had the time to do the proper preparations for them.

Just my thoughts.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 5/15/2006, 7:19 pm

demolishing any one of those buildings would have required at least 1500 lbs of explosives.

there is no way that could have been set up without anybody noticing the day of.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 5/16/2006, 6:43 am

So... what is this paper changing... from my brief reading, isn't it suggesting that it was planted explosives. (I may have misread this)

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 5/16/2006, 2:50 pm

my point is that the explosives were obviously placed there before 9/11. strange security drills were conducted the weeks before the attack, in which entire portions of 1WTC, 2WTC and 7WTC were all evacuated.

coincidence?

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 5/22/2006, 5:12 am

I counducted a fire drill last week. Evacuated the entire building. I dunno about laws in NYC but here its compulsory to have at least 4 fire drills a year. ( I work in a 30 storey building ~100 people per floor) This doesn't mean that where I work is going to have a plane flown into it.

On the other matter, it got me wondering. Do you suppose that all high rise buildings might have provisions for explosives to be placed in them in case something such as 911 did happen?

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 5/22/2006, 3:01 pm

these drills were not fire drills, they were conducted multiple times over the span of a few weeks. this is consistent with the amount of time required to prep a building for demolition.

and i do not understand your second question.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 5/22/2006, 4:10 pm

For a building the size of WTC. Multiple drills over a few weeks is probably more feasible than evacuating the entire complex

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 5/22/2006, 9:26 pm

How long did these security drills last?

Post by **faninor** » 5/23/2006, 1:05 am

Were there similar drills in WTC 3, 4, 5, or 6?

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 5/23/2006, 12:29 pm

i don't know about how long they lasted and at least as far as i know, it was only the 3 demolished buildings that the drills were conducted in.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 5/23/2006, 6:02 pm

haha, you'd think they would do it in more buildings just to throw people off after the fact...

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 5/24/2006, 12:13 pm

throwing people off is unneccessary.

as i'm sure you are now aware, the population will go through unbelievable lengths to believe everything the government says.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 5/24/2006, 3:43 pm

oh yes, I know. I'm not saying that as an argument against it, just surprised they didn't put that extra little bit of effort into it to make those searches seem a little less suspicious.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 5/25/2006, 12:11 pm

i knew you weren't. i was just kind of commenting on how bizarre it is.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 5/25/2006, 12:32 pm

"People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true. Given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. People can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 5/25/2006, 4:13 pm

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 5/25/2006, 6:27 pm