WTC 7 was nuked (too)

We've got a very interesting thread here about micro-nukes being the cause of the collapse of WTC 1,2 & 7.

There are also threads about the damage photos of WTC 7 being tricked, and just what sort of debris damage was inflicted on the building.

Here I want to address the actual collapse of WTC 7 in light of all this, as the mechanism by which it fell is always assumed to be a conventional CD, but there are serious problems with that assumption. (And I don't want to derail the micro-nuke thread with WTC 7, which isn't being addressed there.)

To recap them:

There was no guarantee the falling debris would even have reached WTC 7, thus offering the alibi for its collapse.

If WTC 7 was a conventional CD, it would have required pre-planning to execute, meaning studying the structural plans and placing charges before the event. I've earlier argued this could have been done on the fly, but in light of further study of the structure itself, it's clear that this is not a viable scenario.

The most obvious time for the building to come down would have been immediately after the collapse of the north tower, but instead it fell late in the afternoon, with a large amount of media, local gov't and firefighter testimony/evidence that the building was purposely demolished.

The first and third points indicate that the demolition of WTC 7 was an afterthought, because there was no guarantee it would be damaged, and because its actual demolition was so sloppily handled and so many people were in the know and so many fingerprints were left. Something went seriously wrong--witness the controversy about it today, its being the wedge of the truth movement.

But the second point has always negated these others--how could you drop the building so quickly in what looks for all the world like a classic CD?

Well, that's where the 4G mini-nukes come in. But first let's look at the structure involved.

If you study the building's layout--here is a link to an annotated rebuttal of the FEMA report on the collapse which has excellent photographic materials (including that "lost" photo on a parallel WTC 7 thread)--you will see here that the first seven floors were a complex and densely structured web of structural steel bracing that was necessary to provide the strength necessary to cantilever the northwest third of the 47-story building over a ConEd substation--a concrete-walled structure within WTC 7's structure.

Also notice similar re-enforcement on the 22nd to 24th floors, to protect the infamous City of NY emergency control center.

Now, what this means is that the structure of WTC 7 was far more robust than the standard modern box high rise, due to these two unique features. In essence, it had a base of incredible structural integrity, interlocked with crossbracing in all directions--not a simple grid of columns and trusses. Moreover, it had at its midpoint a belt of massive crossbracing that further strengthened the structure.

Now, let's assume for a moment that the building fell as officially posited--from fire and the damage caused by falling debris. The debris hit on the south face of the building, and would have caused structural weakness there. The office fires are largely irrelevant to any collapse scenario, as they could not have done serious structural damage to the steel framing members.

Since the south face was supposedly undermined by debris and the northeast was cantelevered over the substation, the building should have toppled toward the south. And the re-enforced belt on floors 22-24 should have maintained the structural integrity of the upper floors. What you should have seen was something akin to a falling tree, with the wedge of the debris strike undercutting the lowest floors to the south and the cantelevered section acting as the opposing wedge cut on the north. Then, timber! Well, didn't happen like that though.

Instead we have a freefall CD.

But there are strange anomalies that indicate this was not a conventional CD by any means.

The wreckage pile, as with the towers, is far too small for what one should have with a standard CD.



That NASA satellite thermal image indicates that WTC 7 also had hotspots of molten steel in the basements--indeed the white point marked "A" on the following photo indicates it was about the hottest hotspot of the whole site.



Finally, if you look at the animated gif of the collapse at the top of this page, you'll see the same white smoke that came from the basements of the towers just seconds before their collapse.

And finally, the concrete substation was vaporized.

So, what's going on here?

WTC 7 was brought down by the same devices that took down the towers--pure fusion, shaped charge mini nukes.

It's the only way you can explain the hotspots and the nature of the debris, and can account for the building being rigged "on the fly," as it had to be. One or two of these devices would simply take out the interior structure instantaneously on detonation and let the shell fall down upon itself.

It sure seems that way with WTC7 which in its own right is still a large building. The OKC Federal building suffered a similar fate and a whitewash. There were only 3 bombs in the building, 1 went off and the other 2 were duds and removed. The 1 bomb that went off destroyed a good 1/3rd of the building. That was just the power of one bomb, the other two were supposed to be even more powerful. What sort of bomb could do so much damage? It certainly wasn't an anfo truck bomb and a little researching will show this. In my opinion the ryder truck was arranged and planted to be the OKC bombing scapegoat, much like the planes were on 9/11.

I agree that the demolition of WTC7 was likely another micronuke too, although because there isn't really enough audible evidence of explosions i can't say for sure, but i think its more than likely.

One thing i've just considered (i don't mean to change topic) is that the Pentagon strike was also a mininuke, but in the form of a bunker buster missle..so essentially a shaped nuke charge. Would explain how the neat holes were punched through all that concrete.. just an idea anyway.

There is a few topics here in this forum that specifically address what happened with the cars around the towers on 9/11... The post is about 3 weeks old and I still have yet to see a simple answer.. Apparently its not so each to answer.

Here is the post if you wanna see it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 5/15/2007 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
I agree that the demolition of WTC7 was likely another micronuke too, although because there isn't really enough audible evidence of explosions i can't say for sure, but i think its more than likely.

Well you do have the infamous video of the firemen talking on a street phone when two incredibly sharp reports go off and they say that explosions are going off at building 7.

Unfortunately there's no way of knowing when exactly this occurred, but clearly some softening up was going on, just as with the reported explosions that occurred in the towers--some even a few seconds before the planes hit them.

And what is strange and disturbing is how little news coverage there was of WTC 7 in the end. After all, this was NYC and 9/11--the city with the most concentration of media in the country on the most important day of the century (so far). But yet you just have media crumbs.

never mind wrong thread
[edit on 16-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

CL,

Yes I'd checked that out, and actually this whole question of obviously photoshopped damage is what got me going again with just how/why WTC 7 came down--because it is so clearly the most-bungled part of the job.

I'd weighed in on the original thread and the whole thing is pretty cut and dried--the damage was all done when the north tower fell and that was that. Nothing else happened but office fires until collapse--unless those 2 explosions you've got recorded when the firemen are talking on the public phone are actually caused by them blasting off parts of the facade. But that seems a real stretch, to say the least.

And even then, it shows nothing but desperation and culpability, and prepping to take it down.

So, the NIST photos have been tricked to show more visible damage than was actually there. And now Cameron Fox has a thread showing a VERY suspiciously clean vertical gash on the center of the south facade.

Something very weird is going on--to me it looks for all the world like they're photoshopping the public record and sending it out through Google and Youtube to lead the gullible to buy the idea of a structural collapse. WTC 7 has gone viral and its a real threat to the official pack of lies. I think CF's stuff is exactly that, fresh virtual damage, created yesterday or thereabouts.
Have to check when those videos and photos were OPed on the net...

So my point here is to show that even if you accept that the tricked damage did occur, and that the unseen damage reported by the NIST to the base of the south facade was as extensive as they say, the actual structure of the building precludes the sort of collapse that occurred.

Most people have a problem with understand building structure from plans and elevations; I'm trying to explain it simply and show how it would have acted if the official line was true, and then compare that to the evidence. Of course it doesn't even begin to add up.

And by far the biggest sign of trouble are the WTC 7 hotspots--that means huge energy sources to create those temps and melt that steel. AKA, nukes. Here it's so much more obvious than in the towers.


[edit on 16-5-2007 by gottago]

On "911 Eye Witness", the amount of dust released by WTC 7 is MASSIVE. I had never seen that angle before (from across the river), and it was literally like another mushroom cloud of dust, it just kept coming and coming.. i find it hard to believe that all that dust came from a normal explosives, let alone a gravity collapse!

ss,

yes, the white smoke as it comes down and the roiling dust clouds afterward--all over again.

And just look at this smoldering, burned-out collapse pile--that building was simply fried. Why are we to believe the remains of a building collapse should look like that?



[edit on 16-5-2007 by gottago]