The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

reply to post by fleabit


One of those fleas has affected you. Instead of finding fault with the many different theories put forth by the 'truth' movement, most people who care about truth instead focus on the lies put forth by those who want to hide the truth. I question your motives in making this post. Are we boring you?

Originally posted by NorEaster
WTC#7 held all the servers that contained all the FBI and SEC investigation data into ENRON, World Com, and several other expansive Wall Street cases, and when it went down, so did all those investigations.

That'll be news to Jeff Skilling as he sits in a cell seeing out his 24 year sentence.

reply to post by NorEaster

You're admitting that WTC#7 was intentionally dropped. Okay. I agree. That being the case, it would've had to have been pre-rigged for implosion, and that would have required premeditation on the part of the folks who hired the rigging to be done.

Like I said, explosives "experts". "Rigging" and "pre-rigging" have to with sailing, not explosives. A more accurate industry term is explosive train. A bunch of trains wired together is called a "firing train" or "set".

A building wired for "explosive demolition" contains miles of wire, shock tube, detonation cord, blasting caps and charges. All of which is strung around like spaghetti. You couldn't hide the shock tube in the walls because that would change the length of time it takes to initiate the next charge, destroying the timing of the "controlled demo". They would never use wireless tech because the risk is too great from errant signals, like a cell phone for instance.

To be safe and sure they would have to use wire and shock cord . All that spaghetti would be way to obvious to all the employees who know their local work environments too well not to notice anything "suspicious". On every floor.

The other thing about explosives evidence, is the chemical identifiers. There are always leftover traces of chemical residue and "Trace Identifiers" that point to a manufacturer's lot, type and date code of manufacture. Like fingerprints. All that residue would be stuck to all the bits of wire, plastic and unexploded bits of charges that would litter the site. To date, I have not seen one picture of a piece of wire, shock tube, det. cord or blasting cap shown anywhere on the Internet. Ir would have to be there, like it was after the Oklahoma bombing. Thats how they reconstructed the type of bomb that was used. All we get is the "analysis" which claims there is "similar residue". Where are the finger prints?

You missed the most important point that Cheney was running a war game that exactly mimicked the actual events of that day. He was in control of everything that day and could be considered to be guilty of mass murder .reply to post by Kang69

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

Well, I've had many of these debates and yeah, I enjoy it

Might as well play less seriously and learn more playfully.

An example, as I said, a van was pulled over that morning in connection with a possible terrorist attack, I've seen the news report from that morning. Nothing mentioned about it since.

Also off topic. However, I saw that too and always wondered about it. My only guess is that when the buildings kept burning and not falling, then plan b was rushed into effect where they were going to try to bring them down with bombs in the basement, but they got caught on the way in. Buildings fell eventually anyway.
Hard to say on that one. I got problems with the validity of some Youtube on the subject. Like the moving van with pic on side of plane flying into the towers.
There have been threads on this here...

When asked why NIST did not test for explosive residues, NIST spokesman Michael Newman responded that NIST saw "no evidence saying to go that way."

There were tests done on "residue" but lacked substance. I thought that was already clear.

...designed to withstand hits from Boeing 707s which are similar in size to the 767. Those buildings should have never dropped, especially WTC7.

Far from the same. Difference being not one of size so much as velocity and 10,000 gallons of fuel onboard. Original design studies figured a "lost" airline in (slower) landing approach and low on fuel, not full. I am not sure fuel even entered into it. Or the impact blowing away the fire "retardant". Or "unchecked" fires burning up where the winds were blowing 25 to 30 miles an hour for an hour. These are all additional factors that added to the overall result.

I don' really care what "design" specs said, we saw what happened to their Grand Design.

And obviously, we now know that some members on the NIST board had connections with Bush. The NIST report is certainly not an un-bias assessment on the attacks.

Yah, agreed. The distraction from the truth of it that "my government was actually behind it" is all this chat about how they came down. Keeps us occupied.

reply to post by intrptr
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by intrptr

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive.

No need for me to do that, you are deceiving yourself just fine.

reply to post by intrptr

They would never use wireless tech because the risk is too great from errant signals, like a cell phone for instance.

I disagree. They would have used restricted radio bands not available to the public.

They also could have implemented a fail-safe with an initial arming signal, quickly followed by a
detonation signal. There would be no fear of an accidental ignition.

Your other point about the lack of evidence for initiating primers, radio receivers, power supply batteries,
etc., requires much conjecture...though still not outside the realm of possibility.

And if 9/11 was an inside job utilizing explosives, or something similar, you would have to assume
that those responsible would have gone to great lengths to cover their crime...

What ever happened to the trillions of dollars missing from the Pentagon which can out just about the same time as the attacks, was there some slight of hand or misdirection practised on that day?

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


Ok so lets run through this so i can get this straight.

So fire balls, fire chucks (whatever you want to call them) from the towers flew over a 100 yards with enough force to crash through the windows and walls of WTC 7 (how gravity alone did this is beyond me but lets run with it), those fire balls then start a fire on one side of the building which seems minor compared to the fires/damage in the other buildings that didn't collapse. This office fire then somehow spreads to a portions of the 25 core columns and is in direct contact with them for enough time to destroy the SFRM that protects the steal and causes the steal to expand in a very short period of time? This expansion is so strong that it somehow over powers the strength of tons of steal and concrete causing a chain reaction that destroys the 25 core columns dropping the pent house. This then result in a total collapse at which one point 100 feet worth of 58 steal columns (aproxx 5 floors) all broke apart causing zero resistance an allowing a free fall acceleration of the building. not to mention asymmetrical damage causing a symmetrical collapse.


how many of the core columns would have to be destroyed for the pent house to drop?

my understanding is that metal becomes softer when it heats up, so how strong a force would this so called expansion have to be to basically over power the steal connections of the rest of the building. and how can soft metal over power stronger metal? So ridiculous, you guys are just making # up. thats right up there with "swamp gas"

were these core columns exposed out in the open (i doubt it), how long would it take for fire to burns through the walls and everything else and reach the core column?

Did rube goldberg build WTC 7?

ok guys have to run, making some stew don't want my pan to thermally expand and destroy my stove.

. seems to me that the logical thing to do would be indeed to "pull it"

reply to post by LoonyConservative


Truly loony. You can't set up the demolition in a few hours silly.

As somebody has already posted earlier on in this thread, to me there is no more proof then the video broadcast on BBC....



There's just no logical reason how the reporter could announce the collapse of WTC 7 whilst standing in front of the very same building right beside her.....just no logical reason at all!

reply to post by Kang69


yeah, inside jobitty job job. unless you're asking either bill o'reilley or jon stewart. they would say that it was an outside jobitty job job.

reply to post by Morg234


excellent remark. indeed you can't. i agree. which means that it took perpetrators more than a few days... to... set up the controlled demolition.

reply to post by Just Chris


Actually I can think of several reasons. And about the worst is "they were given a script".

I mean, what would be the point of that?

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by intrptr

 

They would never use wireless tech because the risk is too great from errant signals, like a cell phone for instance.

I disagree. They would have used restricted radio bands not available to the public.

They also could have implemented a fail-safe with an initial arming signal, quickly followed by a
detonation signal. There would be no fear of an accidental ignition.

Your other point about the lack of evidence for initiating primers, radio receivers, power supply batteries,
etc., requires much conjecture...though still not outside the realm of possibility.

And if 9/11 was an inside job utilizing explosives, or something similar, you would have to assume
that those responsible would have gone to great lengths to cover their crime...

Unless you are referring to special forces in a combat zone or Hollywood movies, explosive demolitions technicians would never use radio control to bring down a building. Its just too damn dangerous. That is why they use hardwires as opposed to any frequency controlled signals. Even digital.

The inherent problem is not with encoding, but rather with the strength of nearby signals that can radiate or "bleed" current into blasting wires and initiate a cap or two. Blasting caps operate on just a few milliamps, quite within the realm of ac wiring or sudden surges like solenoids or pump motors, elevators whatever. If the charges are "hidden in the walls" and the wires run next to the wiring in the building, you are asking for trouble. It is ludicrous.

Besides tearing out the sheetrock and attaching shaped charges to the beams and then "damping" them with a 100 sand bags to direct the shock wave into the beam. Anybody who has seen a building wired for explosive demolition knows that the process involved in prepping the structure, precutting beams to lessen the amount of explosives needed, etc. When prepared, the whole place looks like a giant spiderweb of wire and shock cord.

The only people who think the buildings were prepped ahead of time are not familiar with how these things are done. Or they have heard some rumor that this is possible. They aren't really qualified to comment on the process themselves. Been watching to many Schwarzenegger films. They keep asserting something is true but then finish with "not outside the realms of possibility".

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Just Chris

 

Actually I can think of several reasons. And about the worst is "they were given a script".

I mean, what would be the point of that?

You know what I mean...

There's no reason why anything like this should ever have been broadcast...unless they was a conspiracy behind it, which in this case they most certainly is!

reply to post by rival

And if 9/11 was an inside job utilizing explosives, or something similar, you would have to assume
that those responsible would have gone to great lengths to cover their crime...

You mean like letting the "pilots" train in simulators here in the US?
Like letting them live here and even though they were on "watch lists" they were allowed to travel abroad and back freely? Even allowed to fly on numerous flights before their final "mission"?
How about sending little georgie out of town to sit with the kiddies?
How about sending the scrambled fighters to sea so they couldn't interfere?
How about Georges private "sealed" conference with the investigative commission?
Oh and lets not forget the structural analysis by engineers prior to 911 when they shut down the upper half of one of the Twin Towers?
And the speculation on American airlines stock?
And the... well enough. thats a shortlist. I'm sure I left some out.

Originally posted by Just Chris

There's just no logical reason how the reporter could announce the collapse of WTC 7 whilst standing in front of the very same building right beside her.....just no logical reason at all!

Do you reckon she knew the difference between the Solomon Building and WTC 7 or even which building they were talking about? So, based on this faux pau you think the BBC was in on the conspiracy, do you? Those nasty Brits are poking into their former colony's affairs again, are they?

Originally posted by kidtwist
'Harley Guy' (Mark Walsh) who works as a freelance cameraman for Fox News allowed a news crew to film the collapse of WTC7 from his apartment, obviously they must have known it was coming down in advance to be setting up cameras to specifically film it.

This is a radio interview he gave on 12/09/01 the day after 9/11, he states that he allowed the collapse of WTC7 to be filmed from his apartment. This is in the second half of the video.

The black official looking chap at ther end of the video seems to not want to give information about why he is hanging about, which strikes me as odd.