WTC 7 - Why?

Talisman, you just keep repeating that demolition would destroy all evidence. You haven't explained this. I have pointed out that hard drives have been recovered and that paper was strewn all over the city in these "demolitions". You tell me that you can see that the destruction is "pretty complete" when you look at the aftermath; however, when I look at the pictures and see walls several stories high leaning against the gigantic heap of rubble in one piece, I cannot accept for a second that the supposed controlled demolition of this building would be considered more efficient than a paper shredder, or simply removing all the evidence and claiming that nothing could be found.

In fact you brought up a point that supports this reasoning of mine: "The building itself was unsalvageable and would have been demolished for safety and cleanup like the others." Now stop and think for a moment about what YOU just said. If CDI would be entrusted with the "recovery" of data when they were sent to clean up the site, then why would it be deliberately demolished under the pretense that it was a natural collapse? It's way too risky, and certainly unnecessary.


Please tell me what is wrong with the following scenario, or how the conspirators could conceivably have overlooked it:

1. Let WTC7 get severely damaged and burn.
2. Evacuate and block access to the building.
3. Send in CDI to "clean" the site.

This completely eliminates the need to hide the fact that it was a CD.

Originally posted by Stiney
I have pointed out that hard drives have been recovered and that paper was strewn all over the city in these "demolitions".

And yet, we have been asking for proof of this claim for at least 2 pages now and you have not supplied any. Mods, I strike for false admonitions and a banning. It has been done before to people I knew and admired on here for far less.

Originally posted by Griff
we have been asking for proof of this claim for at least 2 pages now

First of all: You have not been asking this for 2 pages. You asked once 2 pages ago. There's a difference. Just now I carefully read through page 8. After I first mentioned recovered data I was bombarded with 10 replies, and only two of them asked for a source. I easily could have missed this the first time, yes? Please show me where on pages 9 and 10 you have repetitively asked this.

Second, you have not provided any contrary evidence. It has been claimed that Silverstein made a huge profit from this, that the towers were money-losers, that WTC7's collapse totally destroyed everything, etc. - none of this has been backed up with sources. If you would ban me for this you are hypocrites.

Anyway, I will research all this as best I can, and in my next post I promise at least 5 sources concerning data recovery, Silverstein's gains and losses, and maybe more. Also if I find anything contrary to anything I have claimed, I will let you know. Until then let's suspend the discussion. Is that fair?

[edit on 28-4-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by Stiney
I'm NOT agreeing with the statement that mechanics is common sense.

It's common sense to me. Maybe you're just ignorant?

He said that Jowenko is not qualified, but he doesn't have to be, because it's common sense.

Now you're twisting my words.

I said he wasn't qualified because he's only used to conventional demos done commercially and out in the open. I said he should have science to back him up, not just his opinion. And then I posted physics. Physics that I think are common sense.

On the other hand, you thought I was talking about mechanical engineering. Obviously it's not common sense to you, because YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IN THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT.

How can you claim to have been studying for six years

If you're talking to me, then quote me please.

If you'd just tone it down and admit that it's nothing but speculation it would help you a great deal.

Wtf, since when is physics speculation?

Your problem is you have no idea wtf you're talking about. That's not my problem, it's yours. You can't even tell me what's wrong with what I posted. If it's speculation, tell me how physics is speculation.

What have I left out? What am I missing? Wind? Again, you don't know what you're talking about.


It's obvious to anyone with eyes here, that in the last series of posts, you were struggling to respond to what was being posted because you aren't familiar with basic physics, 101 stuff, mechanics. Or else you just couldn't refute it. Probably both. Not because it's speculation. Calling it speculation is your way of backing out without having to address it.


PS --

Originally posted by Stiney
First of all: You have not been asking this for 2 pages. You asked once 2 pages ago. There's a difference.

You're ridiculous. I know that papers were thrown everywhere (about the only thing besides structural debris), but you should at least have evidence on hand to back you up. If you don't, you sure as hell can't tell everybody to shut up until you find it. It's your fault for not having it on hand to begin with.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by bsbray11]

I was talking to Pootie.

Quote: "We have had SIX YEARS to study what data is available to us"

The resources are simply not available, yet he acts like there has been a six-year investigation by "truth seekers" who are gathering evidence - when it is nothing more than speculation based on very little data that is actually in reach. I'm just annoyed by what people imply in their choice of words like "study", "facts", "smoking gun"...

I never told everyone to shut up. I agreed to not continue discussing my points until I find the time to pull up 5 sources. Others have also not provided sources for their claims. Neither have you. Do you have any structural engineer who agrees the building should have fell over? Didn't think so. Stand on an aluminum can and cut the side - it will come straight down. The east side of the building fell first meaning it did not all fail at the same time. You are speculating. So am I, on this point. But at least I admit it, and have the relevant experts on my side.

Stiney


Don't misunderstand my point. With a demolition of that size, any documents found can then be done away with, using the excuse of the "DEMOLITION" since it was complete in and of itself.

Doing this when a building is fully functional and secure is not easy.

Think about it this way, I ask you to get my ORANGE JUICE from my house.
You come back and say no problem and bring me my ORANGE JUICE.

Now think about the same thing, but add a little change. I ask you for ORANGE JUICE, but my HOUSE IS DESTROYED.

Now, you go to my house and YOU FIND MY ORANGE JUICE, but you decide to 'hide' it. You come back to me and tell me....The ORANGE JUICE WAS DESTROYED IN THE HOUSE.

Now after the house was destroyed that is believable.

IT is less believable if my house is not destroyed. Documents seized after a demolition have an easier time being shred then ones prior to a demolition when everyone is looking and expecting them to be found.

We have to look at when other key things could have been destroyed with less eyes staring.

There were 2 windows of opportunity here, 1 prior to the collapse of Bldg-7 and in subsequent hours, then after the collapse.

the chain of command is what we should be asking about. *IF* there were recovered things, who did it go to?

The point in the end is this, it was hidden before collapse. It is now hidden after collapse. Whatever was in Building 7 that needed to be 'hid', could be destroyed by a 'demolition'.

That is what it would boil down to. Something that needed to be 'hid' and it is still hidden obviously because we don't hear what they found or what the CIA documents had on them.



All in the "interest of National Security".









[edit on 28-4-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Stiney
I never told everyone to shut up.

Your words were more polite: 'suspend the discussion'.

Others have also not provided sources for their claims.

I can't speak on behalf of others, but I'm often asked for sources and most of the time I know exactly where to look. When I don't, I don't make excuses and ask everyone to stop talking about it.

Do you have any structural engineer who agrees the building should have fell over?

I can tell you aren't familiar with structural engineering, either (what a shock!), because it only involves static loads. SE's don't do work in dynamic physical systems, or even heated steel (metallurgy) or most other subjects we debate on here.

There was a structural engineer, though, Charles Pegelow, that came out against the official story in an interview a while back, and I think I remember him making a point that it didn't make sense for the building to pancake into itself, that such collapses only occur in concrete structures where the floor slabs are poorly connected to the columns, and not in steel-framed buildings.

A quick search will turn this interview up on 9/11 Blogger. The engineer in question has a lengthy resume, working with many contractors across 30 years, and being involved in projects involving designing steel-framed structures that are subject to intense fires.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Stiney,
it can be dificult to pin down the precise motive(s) of destroying WTC7. But here's a few hypothesis:

1) There was a disaster command center on two floors of WTC7 complete with it's own power supply and air supply with fireproofing and reinforced blast resistant windows. In brief the perfect place to sit back and commander the whole even from a "balcony view" of the whole scene. This command post would be destroyed along with the rest of the building to erase any possible incriminating evidences and maybe even eliminate those people inside the command center which might become a liability.

2) The SEC had thousands and thousands of files in there toward specific corporate fraud cases. Yes Enrron was one of them, but what of the billions stolen from the California energy scandal? And there were other paper intensive cases which vanished in WTC7's demolition.

3) CIA also held office there. Maybe there was some incriminating evidences in some terrorism investigations in there. I don't know, just a wild guess.

4) Just like the two towers, I think there was some gold stored in WTC7 but I am not so sure about that, I just recall something to that effect.

I think it is simply obvious that WTC7 was demolished. I don't think anyone can argue with that. But why was it done? Well, there had to be a motive, they don't blast buildings for the hell of it all. But just because you and I don't know what the motive(s) was doesn't mean there were none.

What I think we should worry about for now is those who deliberately try to divert away from investigating WTC7 and try really hard to make sure that nobody in the USA finds out about the demolition of WTC7

Originally posted by Stiney
Do you have any structural engineer who agrees the building should have fell over?

What I do have is a demolition expert who is absolutely firm that WTC7 was demolished.

Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original subtitles)
www.youtube.com...

WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11
video.google.com...

[edit on 29-4-2007 by PepeLapew]

Imagine you're a Fire Chief. Half your company just got vaporized when the towers fell, the other half is running from the dust cloud. Would you send that other half to WTC7 to get killed again by an aready unstable structure? Or would you request demos and run like hell? hint: no one died in WTC7 collapse.

plus, look here, where are the demo charge explosions?




Yea I know, But even demolitions have explosions when they go done. If the WTC towers had explosions for their "demos" then why didn't WTC have it too?

I think it is simply obvious that WTC7 was demolished. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Really? Demolitionists and engineers argue with that.

I already mentioned Danny Jowenko. Look at the top of page 10. You don't have any demo expert other than him who even believes it was a CD, do you? Isn't that sort of a problem? There are several engineers with theories explaining how the collapse was a natural process. There are zero demolitions experts who can explain the lack of sound, flash, seismic data, and the fact that it was done while it was on fire. Zero. In your video, Jowenko is seeing this for the first time. He had a hard time believing it was done on the same day. Flashes, sounds, and the seismic record were not mentioned at all. When he was told of the fire, he answered: "I can't explain that." It's right there in the video you're showing me. Think about it.

Originally posted by Gorman91

No explosions? Really?
Listen to this: www.youtube.com...

Oh there is no doubt that there were explosions. I just thought it was funny that there is no visual explosions.

Originally posted by Stiney

I think it is simply obvious that WTC7 was demolished. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Really? Demolitionists and engineers argue with that.

Here's what I suggest you do. Don't wait for "experts" to explain it all to you, don't wait for me either to explain it all to you either. Here's what you should do: build your own tower. It doesn't have to be really big. Build a 3 foot tall tower out of steel. You can use chicken wire for this, you can use coat hangers too or you can use actual structural steel. Hell, you don't even have to use structural steel, go ahead and use aluminum if you want. But build a 3 foot tall tower.

Then take some rags and douse them in kerosene fuel (aka: jet fuel) or use diesel if you prefer. Stuff your fueled up rags all over your tower and set fire to it. When the fuel burns out, add more fuel to keep the fire going. And just to help you out, smash up one side of your tower to recreate the damage made by falling debris.

Now, I don't care how much fuel you use, I don't care how you build your tower, I don't care how long you let you fire burn and I don't care how much you smash up the one side. The point is you will never be able to destroy your tower and make it collapse vertically onto itself into it's own footprint. No matter how long you let your fires burn, you will never end up with a pool of molten steel at the base of your tower.

You don't need any experts to do this, just try it bud.

Now think about this for a minute. Controlled demolition is a serious job with a large amount of explosives precisely placed, precisely measured charges and precisely detonated at precise times. Only a few companies in the world can do this job and get a building to fall down so completely and so perfectly into it's own footprint.

But if the WTC7 really came down due to fire, that would prove all these companies to be pure frauds. After all, all that is needed to demolish a building is to smash up one side of it with a wrecking ball and let it burn for half a day and the whole thing will collapse perfectly vertically. Does this make sense to you?

[edit on 29-4-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by Gorman91
Oh there is no doubt that there were explosions. I just thought it was funny that there is no visual explosions.

I think this was not a conventional demolition job. I think most of it was done with thermates which would not create a large blast but thermates do cut through steel like butter and the use of thermates would explain the large pools of molten steel found several weeks later in the basements of all 3 buildings.

Furthermore, I think that most of the visible explosions would be seen near the base as this was done from the base up unlike the two towers which were brought down from the top down.

I imagine it like this: the first floor is detonated, then the second floor starts to come down and gets detonated too. As each floor hits the ground it is detonated. This would keep the visible explosions at the base. Only with all the smoke and dust, they would no longer be visible.

But here's some evidences of possibly visible explosion squibs higher up:

Squibs all along the southwest corner in slow motion.
i90.photobucket.com...
www.luogocomune.net...



[edit on 29-4-2007 by PepeLapew]

I really cannot believe that 911 was by the Government. This is because if they wanted to use it to bring down our rights, they would have done it by now. Sure they've come a long ways in destroying the Constitution, but they have no way in any form come close to something like Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR. We still can write here and not be arrested. But the main thing is the motivation to do this. Think about it, if Bush or any of his affiliates wanted to kill off democracy in the US, then why wouldn't you just call an emergency senate meeting, then nuke Washington, with all the senate, enabling him to take the military and take the government over. I think that once he's out in 1 year, he'll remembered as a total ass, but just that. And although I must say that it is odd how the Gov isn't open to us on these matters, seeing as how it would not endanger homeland security, it is still the proof that there is no motivation to do this. If they did it for the cash, then why attack the economy (WTC)? low profits = bad business. And with the war on the leaning to being over, it would seem that we have destroyed ourselves. Iran will move in, strangle our oil, and kill us off with Russia and China being along side with them. I fear we are witnessing the last decade of the USA.

PepeLapew, WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint. It fell into a pile around 1.5 times as large as its footprint. It blocked the street and smashed every other building in the area when it collapsed. Almost any picture will show this. Demolitionists would be out of a job if their job was to simply knock down buildings and leave the whole scene in a terrible mess. But it's not.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
No explosions? Really?
Listen to this: www.youtube.com...

That was several hours before the collapse. Are you telling me that this is what caused it? Ridiculous. Why do we hear nothing like that just before the collapse started like in every other controlled demo in history? Did you look at the comments under that video?

I don't care how you build your tower

You don't need any experts

You have exposed the greatest weakness of the truth movement.

[edit on 29-4-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by Gorman91
If they did it for the cash, then why attack the economy (WTC)? low profits = bad business.

Well, remember that they actually think WTC was a "money loser". I should have time to track down some reliable sources proving the opposite today, as promised - leaving to watch a movie soon, though. Just pointing out that your arguments fall on deaf ears.

Originally posted by Stiney
Well, remember that they actually think WTC was a "money loser". I should have time to track down some reliable sources proving the opposite today, as promised - leaving to watch a movie soon, though. Just pointing out that your arguments fall on deaf ears.

Actually the WTC complex was a real estate dinosaur full of asbestos insulation that needed to be removed. The cost of removing the insulation was estimated well over 2 billion. Of course, Silverstein knew that when he took the 99 year lease a few weeks before, hence the reason he got such a low price in the deal. Now he gets the insurance money to rebuild instead of having to back the money himself to remove the insulation and he still gets a very low lease price. Of course, now there are reports flying around about how Silverstein isn't making a big deal of money due to 9/11 but you have to agre the guy would be an idiot to dance around and claim he is making a killing off of 9/11. But the insurance money is just one part of all this. Here are a few other reasons why it was done:

- On 9/10 (the day before) the Pentagon released the news that 2.3 trillion dollars were "missing" from the Pentagon budget and the next day, nobody would remember this. The convenient 9/11 attack made us all forget about that "missing" $2,300,000,000,000.oo and now nobody even remembers it.

- The PNAC bunch wrote on Sept. 2000 (a year earlier) that they wanted to attack Iraq and increase dramatically the military budget but this would take a very long time least a "New Pearl Harbor" would happen......on the night of 9/11 Bush would write in his journal "today a New Pearl Harbor happened".

- The Patriot Act which was actually written BEFORE 9/11. Without 9/11 the people would have never allowed that act to pass but after 9/11 the gubment was basically given a blank check to do whatever they want.

Originally posted by Stiney
PepeLapew, WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint. It fell into a pile around 1.5 times as large as its footprint.

Well, 1.5 times the size of it's own footprint is pretty much what a team of controlled demolition experts would do as well.
Just look here:
www.coffinman.co.uk...
It doesn't get more "on it's own footprint" then this!