• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates this weekend: Saturday 7th - Sunday 8th June 2025.
    Little to no downtime is expected.

WTC Demolition Conspiracy

Was the WTC disaster an inside job?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • Total voters
    15
Depends. It's a community broadsheet, not a peer reviewed journal. What are you used to?
 
And all those 2s on a thread about twins :cynic:

Off topic but have you seen a movie called "2:22"? Screenshot_20190515-171126.png
 
All right! I give in. George Bush and Colin Powell did what Rummy and the fat bloke told them to and detonated a nuclear device that blew up the tall building which brought down the other tall building which brought down the other not so tall building in a domino strategy in a machivellian plot that worked exactly as they planned it for whatever nefarious outcome they devised it to initiate. It's all true! My disinfo days are done! I'm done.
 
skinny said:
Oh yeah, now I remember. WT7's infrastructure was weakened by the collapse of WT1 and 2, and this precipitated the collapse of WT7. Right?
But is that reeeally what caused it? (I'm holding back and only being a bit mocky.)

It was all recorded on the TV. Almost all.
Click to expand...
The 2 towers collapsing would have caused a highly localised earthquake. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility, although the event registered fairly low on the Richter scale.
 
Mythopoeika said:
The 2 towers collapsing would have caused a highly localised earthquake. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility, although the event registered fairly low on the Richter scale.
Click to expand...

I doubt the seismic / quake effect played much of a role. The reported Richter Scale readings from the Twin Towers' collapsing ranged from 2.1 to 2.4 - similar to a small temblor unlikely to cause any structural damage.

7WTC was hit by debris from one of the collapsing towers, causing a major structural wound on its south face and a less extensive but still critical wound on the southwest corner. Both these wounds compromised the overall frame / truss integrity. Another factor was the set of fires started by the debris strikes, which burned for hours and hours because there wasn't sufficient water pressure to fight them. 7WTC collapsed almost 7 hours after the Twin Towers had fallen.
 
I dont think i ever heard of WT7, weird. And the destruction never touched the church that was nearby, I saw a large building near, that had black plastic covering it, it was not fit to be in.

And thank you guys for the info xxx
 
I just don't know if the Yanks could pull off such a clandestine operation on it's own doorstep and do it so well. Hundreds if not thousands of people and preparations involved.it would have been a major gamble.I don't think it was carried out to give an excuse to invade Afganistan/Iraq etc,the U.S wouldn't need to go to that lengths to create a pretext to attack anyone. They are usually content with flimsy excuses{see Grenada/Panama/Desert Storm}The U.S have got better at covert ops over the last 18 years but I don't believe that they were capable of 9/11 at that time.I'm no expert of course. There is lots of factors to 9/11 that may not make sense but really the world has never experienced such an incident in modern times and nothing to really compare it to. Presently the U.S have a President who isn't even trying to hide his intentions. What would be the reason to kill thousands of your own people at such a cost. The CIA have interfered globally since they were founded, instigating every major coup world wide, theu could have came up with something less devastating than 9/11
 
AngelChat said:
I read an article about 5 years ago that claimed a nuclear device had caused the Twin Towers to collapse the way they did. Apparently each of the towers had them installed during construction as a means to demolish the buildings at a later date without causing damage to the surrounding buildings.
Click to expand...
Doesn't this sound a bit unlikely to you? The likelihood of a nuclear device demolishing a high-rise building without causing damage to surrounding buildings would seem to be fairly low. It was installed during construction - really? On which floor?

There's no big explosion on the footage. Planes hit the buildings, there's a fire which burns for several hours, buildings collapse.

I don't see any evidence of a nuclear explosion.
 
hunck said:
Doesn't this sound a bit unlikely to you? The likelihood of a nuclear device demolishing a high-rise building without causing damage to surrounding buildings would seem to be fairly low. It was installed during construction - really? On which floor?

There's no big explosion on the footage. Planes hit the buildings, there's a fire which burns for several hours, buildings collapse.

I don't see any evidence of a nuclear explosion.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, there's no way of making a shaped charge out of even a small yield nuclear bomb. It would just cause damage in a huge blast radius, destroying other buildings for some distance.
 
maximus otter said:
l don’t know. lf spittle-flecked anti-Americanism ever becomes a speciality subject on Mastermind, l think you’ll do yourself proud.

maximus otter
Click to expand...


Christ almighty Why do you think that constitutes "spittle-flecked" or "anti-American"? There's nothing there in LZ's post. He is critical about the current president and there is enough evidence that the CIA has been fucking around with different countries for years.

If you think that is Anti-American then there are millions of people who actually live in America who think the same.

"spittle-flecked" - do you ever read your own replies to threads?
 
maximus otter said:
l don’t know. lf spittle-flecked anti-Americanism ever becomes a speciality subject on Mastermind, l think you’ll do yourself proud.

maximus otter
Click to expand...

Posters can say things you don't agree with and even things that aren't true without deserving such mordancy.

No more of this, please.
 
hunck said:
Doesn't this sound a bit unlikely to you? The likelihood of a nuclear device demolishing a high-rise building without causing damage to surrounding buildings would seem to be fairly low. It was installed during construction - really? On which floor?

There's no big explosion on the footage. Planes hit the buildings, there's a fire which burns for several hours, buildings collapse.

I don't see any evidence of a nuclear explosion.
Click to expand...

Underground. They weren't filming that bit...
Underground.png

(Image grabbed from the website I linked in my original post http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html)
 
Frideswide said:
why?
Click to expand...

Why underground?

Atomic detonation underground creates a void, which the building can then fall down into. There was a long explanation of it on the web page I read a few years ago but I can't find it now.

However, from memory, it explained that in order to get planning permission to build the towers, a means of demolition for a later date was required and this was (at the time) thought to be the most effective means, and looking at the diagram shown, and the distinct lack of rubble when compared to the height and contents of the building, leads me to my own personal conclusion that this makes more sense of what happened than any of the other explanations I've read.

My own personal conclusion, not stated as a fact, just as "makes sense to me"
 
I meant, why is there a need to suggest an underground nuclear explosion?
 
I guess you'd have to ask the guy who suggested it. If I ever find the original site again I'll be sure to let you know his name :headspinner:
 
I remember watching on TV, BBC news 24, probably.

At one point I clearly recall a reporter on the scene shouting that there had been an explosion, the impression was that a bomb had gone off at the base of one of the towers.

They fell down soon after, so it was probably some internal collapse that was part of the final destruction.
 
Lovely find @Newt ! I particular;y liked

Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was 'pleased' with the outcome, 'all things considered'.
Click to expand...
 
AngelChat said:
...and the distinct lack of rubble when compared to the height and contents of the building...
Click to expand...

I often wonder what datum people are using when they make this type of claim - what comparison is being made which indicates an anomaly in this particular case?

Buildings mainly consist of air: they are frameworks in which a relatively large amount of void is enclosed by a relatively small amount of mass - and, compared to that mass, the loose contents of the structure are incredibly fragile. The piles of post collapse debris have never screamed out to me as being obviously out of proportion to the fabric of the undamaged structure.
 
Last edited:
I have absolutely no doubt about the planes flying into the towers, I watched it happen from a cafe in Greece.

But there is something odd about Building Seven.

Remember, as I just said, I watched the tragedy unfold. And this included what was happening to Building Seven.
And there was no apparent reason that building should even have been seriously fire damaged let alone collapse.
The time line of the things that happened simply does not make sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
INT21 said:
I have absolutely no doubt about the planes flying into the towers, I watched it happen from a cafe in Greece.

But there is something odd about Building Seven.

Remember, as I just said, I watched the tragedy unfold. And this included what was happening to Building Seven.
And there was no apparent reason that building should even have been seriously fire damaged let alone collapse.
The time line of the things that happened simply does not make sense.
Click to expand...
My understanding from what I read years ago was that building 7 was intentionally brought down because there was damage and proximilty issues to the others...I"m not an expert on architecture but this was not a secret. Again my take is that ct people claimed other wise and started theories even though that was explained somewhere along the line. Perhaps some one who knows more about this can address it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there is a thread on it somewhere.*

It just seemed odd when one compares it to much more vicious fires that have left the building standing.

Anyway. It's just a suspicion.

* Here - the appropriate place to which this line of discussion has been moved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top