WTC 7 - Why?

Neat how you ignored ALL of the corporate scandal fils I pointed out.

But, to answer your questions:

1. If the operation was coordinated from in the US, WTC 7 with a special blast proof, sealed air, backup power bunker with a PERFECT view of the WTC complex would be an ideal choice to any project manager. It was LOADED with communication to all agencies and all types of surveillance equipment. ALSO... RULE #1 of committing a CRIME: DESTROY THE EVIDENCE. Think like a criminal for just a second... Google Rudy's Bunker and see for yourself what was in it.

2. If you want to do an "Urban Revitaization" of the complex (remember, the original WTC complex was an Urban Renewal project) then why wouldn't you start TOTALLY FRESH if you had a chance to do it for free? REMEMBER, new buildings lease for much more than old ones.

3. Why was it hardly mentioned? IT WAS THAT DAY. EVERYONE SAW IT. The achieved the effect. Maybe the reason they do not bring it up anymore is because it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that it was not a natural collapse.

Care to respond to any of my other points?

Originally posted by Stiney
Insurance covered 4.6 billion. Rebuilding cost 9 billion.

Give me your source.

This one causes many problems:



Watch and sun/shadow analysis each indicate that it occured at about 10:16AM. Photo analysis demonstrate that this corner was about 3 blocks North if WTC7. I cant link the materialis in from here at work, but I probably will later if this evidence demands attention...

Originally posted by Pootie
Neat how you ignored ALL of the corporate scandal fils I pointed out.

I skipped the points that have already been brought up in this thread (which I addressed). No point repeating ourselves.

1. If the operation was coordinated from in the US, WTC 7 with a special blast proof, sealed air, backup power bunker with a PERFECT view of the WTC complex would be an ideal choice to any project manager. It was LOADED with communication to all agencies and all types of surveillance equipment. ALSO... RULE #1 of committing a CRIME: DESTROY THE EVIDENCE. Think like a criminal for just a second... Google Rudy's Bunker and see for yourself what was in it.

You need to read my response again. I never said that evidence doesn't need to be destroyed. I asked why the building would need to be destroyed in order to destroy the evidence. Again, what would be required other than the remote controllers? What other evidence would there be that needed to be destroyed?

2. If you want to do an "Urban Revitaization" of the complex (remember, the original WTC complex was an Urban Renewal project) then why wouldn't you start TOTALLY FRESH if you had a chance to do it for free? REMEMBER, new buildings lease for much more than old ones.

I'll address this once you prove that it was free. I have read that it wasn't - don't worry, I'll post my sources once I get a chance to find them. Until then I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions, or if you have your own evidence that it was free, please present it.

3. Why was it hardly mentioned? IT WAS THAT DAY. EVERYONE SAW IT. The achieved the effect. Maybe the reason they do not bring it up anymore is because it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that it was not a natural collapse.

Okay, go ask random people in the street if they knew about it. Everybody saw it? Please. Truthers have always stressed how secretive this was, as proof that the government is hiding something. Now you're saying EVERYONE SAW IT and that's how they wanted it. You can't have it both ways. And if they "changed their mind" about drawing attention to it after realizing it was so "obvious", then why did NIST, after finishing the twin tower investigation, begin an investigation on WTC 7 specifically? Why are they drawing attention to it instead of hoping everyone will forget about it?

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by Stiney
I skipped...

Until you produce the source of your insurance pay out and rebuild numbers NOTHING you have to say here is relevant or worth responding to.

You keep asking me for a source on how insurance generally works... call an agent. I this case you are saying he only had the building insured FOR HALF OF THE REPLACEMENT COST or HE WANTED TO PAY FOR UPGRADES. Lenders would NEVER have allowed the former and the latter, if true, would have been done to increase future revenues.

Business and Insurance 101.

Now... where is your source?

Originally posted by Stiney
don't worry, I'll post my sources once I get a chance to find them.

LOL holy shoot... you just made me spit out my coffee.


[edit on 25-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Stiney
Also, here is another tall building in the line of fire:

img455.imageshack.us...

Would you not expect WTC 7 to suffer similar damage? Or do you see this as "superficial?

Seeing as the building stood, I'd call it superficial. I say superficial meaning that the damage isn't enough to collapse the building.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This one causes many problems

I really want to focus on motive in this thread, instead of debating whether there is evidence of explosives. I'll quickly post my thoughts on this, but let's not bring this way off-topic.

I think this video is meant to be used as a reason to believe there were explosives in WTC7 - is that right? If so, I'll have to agree with your statement "This one causes many problems", but not in the sense that you meant. This actually causes problems to the theory of controlled demolition. If this happened at 10:16 in the morning, and the building collapsed in the late afternoon, it doesn't make any sense to say it was a CD. You don't set off one explosion and wait several hours to set off the next. You risk premature failure of a section causing the whole operation to be unpredictable. Why is this sound not heard as it was collapsing or just seconds before? It should have been heard several times in rapid succession. I hope we can both agree that anything that sounds like an explosion is not necessarily an explosion, and even if it is it doesn't mean it originated from a planted explosives. There were several things in all the buildings that would have exploded from fire.

Anyway, do you believe this was a planned demolition? If so what do you think the motive could have been?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Stiney
Also, here is another tall building in the line of fire:

img455.imageshack.us...

Would you not expect WTC 7 to suffer similar damage? Or do you see this as "superficial?

Seeing as the building stood, I'd call it superficial. I say superficial meaning that the damage isn't enough to collapse the building.

So you're telling me that the building's structure is not affected here? It would hold up fine if it burned for 7 hours? Really?

Pootie, wow, that was... sad. Pathetic. You took two quotes from my post and deliberately took them out of context. I said I skipped the points which have already been brought up and I responded to. Did you read the thread? I also said that I had read about the building costs myself. Think about that for a while - that means that I know the source exists, and I simply need to find it; I'm a human being, not an encyclopedia. I warned you against jumping to conclusions, and you just made a complete fool of yourself by doing it again and again.

Originally posted by Stiney
Pootie, wow, that was... sad. Pathetic.

What, your understanding of commercial real estate lending and insurances?

Originally posted by Stiney
You took two quotes from my post and deliberately took them out of context.

You write, I interpret. It is the nature of communication.

Originally posted by Stiney Did you read the thread?

Yes.

Originally posted by Stiney
I also said that I had read about the building costs myself. Think about that for a while - that means that I know the source exists

For all I know you are just making things up... No source = BS. You could at least have a book title or something...

Originally posted by StineyI warned you against jumping to conclusions, and you just made a complete fool of yourself by doing it again and again.

YOU WARNED ME??? The guy with no sources wants to debate with hearsay, I call him out and I have been "warned"? This crap is priceless.

What is your motive for your elegant and thoughtful sourceless "debunking'?

Originally posted by Stiney
So you're telling me that the building's structure is not affected here? It would hold up fine if it burned for 7 hours? Really?

Yes. There are many historical precedents for steel framed buildings surviving raging infernos for hours and NONE for them collapsing from fire.

NIST FABRICATED the extent of the damage... Why don't you do a little reading here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Stiney
So you're telling me that the building's structure is not affected here?

Well, to me, it looks like one column has been taken out. I recommend looking into what is called safety factors and steel design. Most steel structures have a FOS (Factor of Safety) of anywhere between 2-3 usually. Getting rid of one column will have little affect on the rest of the structure.

BTW, ever see pictures of what was left of the Murrah Building in OKC?



Guess how many columns held that up. ONE.

If one column can hold the rest of the Murrah Building up, then loosing one column in a building isn't going to do much IMO.

It would hold up fine if it burned for 7 hours? Really?

Most steel testing before 9/11 would say that it would. I don't have sources on hand but check out studies done in the past on steel.

[edit on 4/25/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
Most steel testing before 9/11 would say that it would. I don't have sources on hand but check out studies done in the past on steel.

More like ALL relevant tests show this, even after 9/11. NIST's own tests showed that the trusses held up in 2 hour fires, unprotected, and they completely neglected to see if this made the outer columns fail.

Somewhere in their preliminary releases they modeled a tower with several floors of trusses completely gutted, and the building would have stood indefinitely unless extraordinarily strong winds came in.

You write, "no sources = BS". I've also asked you for your sources that it was free - you have supplied none.

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by Stiney
So you're telling me that the building's structure is not affected here? It would hold up fine if it burned for 7 hours? Really?

Yes. There are many historical precedents for steel framed buildings surviving raging infernos for hours and NONE for them collapsing from fire.

Read my question again. Are there any precedents for this type of building, with this type of damage that have burned for at least 7 hours without collapsing?

No.

BTW, ever see pictures of what was left of the Murrah Building in OKC?

It's a completely different structure. It's not even steel, it's reinforced concrete. What's your point?

Originally posted by bsbray11
More like ALL relevant tests show this, even after 9/11. NIST's own tests showed that the trusses held up in 2 hour fires, unprotected, and they completely neglected to see if this made the outer columns fail.

Have you read this:

www.nist.gov...

Originally posted by Stiney
Are there any precedents for this type of building, with this type of damage that have burned for at least 7 hours without collapsing?

No.

So you are making any comparison impossible. Nice tactic, "debunkers" try it all the time here:

1. OKC bombing... Apples to apples except OKC had 10x the damage if not more.

2. This is like asking can Sylvestr Stallone survive being impaled by a sword... then I say, probably because many others have, then you respond by saying that there is no comparison because Sly is a tough ass, Italian who loves VWs and has a tattoo so no comparison is relevant.

Originally posted by Stiney
It's a completely different structure. It's not even steel, it's reinforced concrete. What's your point?

All buildings are designed with safety factors, especially skyscrapers or other unconventional buildings. The building materials don't matter.

And concrete isn't special, either. It's no better than steel at carrying loads, it has NO tensile strength, and when heated, it breaks because of expansion and the water molecules in it.


You're looking at ONE COLUMN holding up about half of the entire building. That's what a safety factor is for. Columns are built to take much higher loads than the loads that are expected for day-to-day use, for safety, hence "safety factor".

[edit on 25-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Stiney
Have you read this:

www.nist.gov...

YEAH! Another reference to a NIST report that we have all READ ALREADY.

Search box, use it and see how many times EACH NIST PUBLICATION had been individually picked apart and debunked on this site.

you will be pleasantly surprised!