People may wonder when was there a chance to place explosives in the World Trade Center towers. Here is a brief video that helps to explain this. Starting in about a minute and a half into the video there is a discussion about peopple who worked in the World Trade Center Towers who said that prior to 9/11 there had been several unexplained evacuations and power downs in the towers.
9/11 Truth: Unusual Evacuations & Power-Downs in the WTC Prior To 9/11
Now that I think about it, there were many parts of the WTC that were vacant (not rented) before 9/11, this probably shortened the amount of time needed for the buildings to be evacuated. Here is an article (see second item called "Skyscaper Award") that talks about how before 9/11 the WTC 7 was mostly vacant and after 9/11, when it was rebuilt, it has become attractive as office space.
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_211/undercover.html
Showing posts with label conspiracy theories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conspiracy theories. Show all posts
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Who is debunking whom? Why did the World Trade Center 7 building collapse?
In the Metro Section of the May 30, 2007 New York Times, in Jim Dwyer’s column “A notion from 9/11 is kept alive”, he has deluded himself into thinking that he has debunked alternate theories regarding WTC 7. He writes in his column, “...a comprehensive study by Popular Mechanics magazine concluded that along the bottom 10 floors, a quarter of the south face was knocked away.”
If the south part of the building had “a quarter of the south face” of the building knocked out, then the building would topple over, not collapse straight down into its own base. (The website whatreallyhappened.com first pointed this out)
There is a website that is dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, and it does the same thing. In attempt to disprove those who say not much damage was done to the WTC 7 building, it unwittingly goes on to reveal a flaw in the “official” explanation of why the building collapsed. ( http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html ) The website repeatedly makes reference to the damage on the south side of the building. There is a quote from Battalion Chief John Norman (Special Operations Command - 22 years), “...at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.”
Would a building that was heavily damaged on one side collapse straight down into its base or would it topple over?
Here is a compilation of video clips showing WTC 7 collapsing
If the south part of the building had “a quarter of the south face” of the building knocked out, then the building would topple over, not collapse straight down into its own base. (The website whatreallyhappened.com first pointed this out)
There is a website that is dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, and it does the same thing. In attempt to disprove those who say not much damage was done to the WTC 7 building, it unwittingly goes on to reveal a flaw in the “official” explanation of why the building collapsed. ( http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html ) The website repeatedly makes reference to the damage on the south side of the building. There is a quote from Battalion Chief John Norman (Special Operations Command - 22 years), “...at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.”
Would a building that was heavily damaged on one side collapse straight down into its base or would it topple over?
Here is a compilation of video clips showing WTC 7 collapsing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)