WTC 7 - Why?

Originally posted by Stiney
You're still not getting the point: They would have been in control of the fire. If it was possible for a natural fire to destroy the data, that's all they would need. They would make it happen, blame it on natural fires, and no one would be able to say otherwise.

Natural and controlled burn are mutually exclusive.

You would have too many points of origin or accelerant residue. Both EASILY detectable as the building would have still been intact.

It is you that is missing the point.

The only reason I'm saying they more likely would have chosen to use fire is because according to conspiracists demolition was obvious. Now you're telling me fire would be more obvious. You can't have it both ways.

What's obvious is that people have a very hard time believing that anything that looks like a demolition is not. People don't have a hard time believing that there would be fires. There are several ways to cause fires. There is no way to cause a complete controlled demolition that does not look like a controlled demolition.

So these guys are capable of setting explosives in a populated building completely behind the scenes - fireproof explosives that don't cause flashes or loud bangs, might I add - but they are not capable of starting fires that look natural.

Originally posted by Stiney
The only reason I'm saying they more likely would have chosen to use fire is because according to conspiracists demolition was obvious. Now you're telling me fire would be more obvious. You can't have it both ways.

IT would have left more evidence that would have taken loger to dismantle and remove leaving a greater window of opportunity for an investigation to occr and relevant items to be recovered. Do not put words into my mouth.

Originally posted by Stiney
What's obvious is that people have a very hard time believing that anything that looks like a demolition is not. People don't have a hard time believing that there would be fires. There are several ways to cause fires. There is no way to cause a complete controlled demolition that does not look like a controlled demolition.

No... I have a hard time believing the NIST/FEMA reports re: WTC 7 that are riddled with guesses and explain nothing. The physics, the wording, the lack of investigation, the fact that it looks like a demo, the fall times, the items in the building, the bunker, the fact that it was hit by debris weh nits was 100M away, and on and on is why I do not think it was natural. There are far more reasons than "it looked like a controlled demolition".

I will be bold and break my rules... IT WAS.

Originally posted by Stiney
So these guys are capable of setting explosives in a populated building completely behind the scenes - fireproof explosives that don't cause flashes or loud bangs, might I add - but they are not capable of starting fires that look natural.

Have you ever worked in a skyscraper? there are contractors running around all the time into parts of the building oyu will never see. Basements, cable races, elevator shafts, maintenance closets... Easy in my mind.

Flashes? Bangs? Come on... you watch too many movies. It was an intact building. Shaped charges burried in the basements on columns would not be visible and with the correct brisance barely audible. They don't use dynamite
Here is a good quote form a CDI demo contractor:

"With the use of delays, we can control pretty much where the debris lands; we can control vibration; we can control noise levels. Timing a delays are the keys to just about everything in our business."

Study up... they are pretty advanced with this stuff and this is only what they are publishing... DREXS.

I've always wondered why people keep mentioning how far away the building was. You completely ignore the scale here. How far were pieces from the towers ejected? Other buildings at relatively the same distance were clearly hit, there are photographs that show they were in range of the debris...

Flashes? Bangs? Come on... you watch too many movies.

Movies?

Pootie, how many demolitions have you seen? Can you refer me to any event where there were no flashes in the building? No bangs?

What exactly are you going on? Why don't you contact some demolition companies for us and ask them specifically if it is possible to set off explosives that bring down a building but don't make any noise or flashes, and what that would take. Remember, they also need to be fireproof. If you can't get an example of such explosives successfully taking down a building, then the favorite conspiracist line "this has never occured naturally before" is hypocritical - it's never happened in the CD world either. The difference is, there were completely new factors added here that have also never happened before. They affect what "nature" is capable of. On the other hand there is nothing about 9/11 that would allow technology to suddenly become more advanced just for one event. To believe the CD theory you have to assume based on no evidence that these special explosives were secretly developed and hidden for who knows how long - just for 9/11.


Bah, I'm rambling, sorry.

Back on topic: I still don't see how fires could not be set and made to look like they were naturally caused. Your only reasoning seems to be that a building that is not demolished allows for a better investigation. You forget that the remainder of what was at the site was demolished as well, but it wasn't a big secret. They had a reason - it was dangerous for compromised buildings to be standing there, so they had to be taken down safely... and the site needed to be cleaned up. The same would have been done with building 7. There was no need to demolish it immediately. They could ensure that everything was destroyed and blame it on their fire, announce that nothing is salvageable and the have the building demolished for safety reasons. No reason to hide it.
And you still haven't given a rational explanation as to why this was the only building targeted if there were other backups in other buildings. Or why this was not done under cover of the dust cloud.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Stiney]

Also - not only were there backups elsewhere, some hard drives etc. were recovered after the collapse. For the sake of argument let's ignore everything I said about how only fires would make it easier for people to believe and all that. Let's say that demolishing the building is the only reasonable way to destroy this evidence. Or the "best" way. Okay, now, this one simple fact that data was recovered even from the rubble is quite a problem. If the intention was to destroy this data, it would have been erased prior to the demolition, and the inability to recover the data would of course be attributed to the fact that it was inside a collapsed building. Do you have any problem with this reasoning? I think it's pretty basic.

Originally posted by Stiney
But many people are claiming that they have evidence. That this is a smoking gun. If there is no reasonable motive, that isn't a stretch, then people need to admit that it's nothing close to that. Claiming that you have evidence when it is nothing but speculation, only hurts your cause, even if you're right.

You know, I actually agree on your point here. That's what keeps me on the fence. But, to me, IMO the way the building fell is a little suspicious (sp?). That's why I try not to indulge in speculation (and fail miserably at it). I try to keep with physics. And to me, and many more engineers everyday, it's just not adding up. If NIST would come with a plausable explaination, then it might shut us up. Also, I've seen the NIST report re: WTC 1&2. There are no structural calculations, specifications for computer simulations, meaningful drawings (of which I have already proven that they are misleading at best) etc. that could be veryfied or even, dare I say, "peer reviewed" in any manner.

But, keep up with your questions. Because, they are plausible and both sides should think about them.

Originally posted by Stiney
Fire destroying everything inside would be easier for people to believe.

What type of people are you insuating here? FOX NEWS watchers? Seriously, what are you saying? That Americans are dumb? It goes both ways. It's much easier for "dumb" people to think that fires felled three fireproofed steel buildings that day, than fire completely destroyed all evidence of wrongdoing.

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by Pootie
The best laid plans... screw ups happen all the time.

That's a pathetic and all-too-common response to any inconsistency found in the perfectly orchestrated 1,000 person ho-down of the 9/11 conspiracy.

And Pootie's point is made perfectly. It's all too common for the goivernment to claim "incompetence" but you people want the conspirators to be omnipotent. People are people. People F up some times. On all sides.

Originally posted by Pootie
Have you ever worked in a skyscraper? there are contractors running around all the time into parts of the building oyu will never see. Basements, cable races, elevator shafts, maintenance closets... Easy in my mind.

I will attest to this. And have even been on the ABC building in NYC (1500 Broadway) hanging off the side of the building doing inspections. I have pictures if anyone would like to contest me.

[edit on 4/26/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Stiney
Other buildings at relatively the same distance were clearly hit, there are photographs that show they were in range of the debris...

And yet they didn't burn and fall like a CD? Hmmm....

Originally posted by Stiney
They affect what "nature" is capable of.

I guess by "they" you mean the government? Because, that's the only "they" who can affect what nature (physics) is cable of. At least what "they" report physics is capable of. Magic bullet ring a bell? And the American people took it hook line and sinker.

On the other hand there is nothing about 9/11 that would allow technology to suddenly become more advanced just for one event. To believe the CD theory you have to assume based on no evidence that these special explosives were secretly developed and hidden for who knows how long - just for 9/11.

What? Huh? And Who? What the heck are you talking about? There's no secret technology out there?

Back on topic: I still don't see how fires could not be set and made to look like they were naturally caused. Your only reasoning seems to be that a building that is not demolished allows for a better investigation.

And, it's a solid reasoning if you think about it.

And you still haven't given a rational explanation as to why this was the only building targeted if there were other backups in other buildings. Or why this was not done under cover of the dust cloud.

First, we've given plenty of rational reasons, you're just not listening. Second, I either missed something or what are you talking about "backups"?

Originally posted by Stiney
Also - not only were there backups elsewhere, some hard drives etc. were recovered after the collapse. For the sake of argument let's ignore everything I said about how only fires would make it easier for people to believe and all that. Let's say that demolishing the building is the only reasonable way to destroy this evidence. Or the "best" way. Okay, now, this one simple fact that data was recovered even from the rubble is quite a problem. If the intention was to destroy this data, it would have been erased prior to the demolition, and the inability to recover the data would of course be attributed to the fact that it was inside a collapsed building. Do you have any problem with this reasoning? I think it's pretty basic.

I have no problem with your reasoning as long as you supply the proof of your statements. I'm not calling you out but, you can understand why I would need these things before I can just believe your word for it. Thanks.

I'm sure most of you have already seen this clip of a UK BBC news reporter stating that tower 7 has fallen yet it still stands behind her.

I like how the video feed gets distorted at the end of the interview suggesting someone has realised that the story has been leaked to early.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Stiney
I've always wondered why people keep mentioning how far away the building was. You completely ignore the scale here.

No, you ignore the amount of energy required to eject huge steel columns laterally in a gravity driven collapse.

Why did 4,5, and 6 remain standing with 100x the damage?

Originally posted by Stiney
Pootie, how many demolitions have you seen?

NONE WHERE THE GOAL WAS TO HIDE THE CHARGES. Usually windows, walls and contents are removed prior to demolition. All of these thing would naturally suppress flash and sounds, not to mention low brisance charges.

Originally posted by StineyWhy don't you contact some demolition companies for us and ask them specifically if it is possible to set off explosives that bring down a building but don't make any noise or flashes, and what that would take.

SEE THE ABOVE QUOTE FROM A CDI BLASTER. God man, you don;t even read what I write.

Originally posted by Stiney
Remember, they also need to be fireproof.

Faulty logic but I will entertain. Most explosives, sa C4 for example DO NOT EXPLORE when burned. FACT.

Originally posted by Stiney it's never happened in the CD world either.

I don't think anyone has asked for it before. It would be dangerous to leave all the walls and windows and expensive to conceal the flashes and mute the sound.

Originally posted by Stiney To believe the CD theory you have to assume based on no evidence that these special explosives were secretly developed and hidden for who knows how long - just for 9/11.

No. You only need to believe CDI and it's blasters. There is nothing that special about a low brisance charge. It is all about shping, timing and mixture according to them... ONE LAST TIME:

"With the use of delays, we can control pretty much where the debris lands; we can control vibration; we can control noise levels. Timing a delays are the keys to just about everything in our business."

You have now jumped from point to point about six times with me in this thread... You have failed to respond to even my most basic questions to you. I respond to all of your points, you skip 90% of mine and change points. Silverstein, Fires, explosive noise, Data Destruction.... You have failed to "wrap up" any of these loose ends. I am not a fricking answer factory that will allow you to see ten answers, pick one, attack it, get ten more answers, repeat, etc. whilst NEVER answering questions youtrself. DUDE... YOUR ANSWERS SHOULD BE SIMPLE... THE GOV'T COVERED IT ALL RIGHT? AND THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE RIGHT? So. You tell me:

HOW DID WTC 7 COLLAPSE NATURALLY?

Good luck, you boys at the NIST still have not told us SIX years later.

The rest of your post is simple repitition of your earlier posts so I will avoid it.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Stiney
Also - not only were there backups elsewhere, some hard drives etc. were recovered after the collapse.

SOURCE??????? Learn quickly... posting words here, as fact, without sources, will lead to people asking for your source...

Originally posted by Stiney Okay, now, this one simple fact that data was recovered even from the rubble is quite a problem. If the intention was to destroy this data, it would have been erased prior to the demolition, and the inability to recover the data would of course be attributed to the fact that it was inside a collapsed building. Do you have any problem with this reasoning? I think it's pretty basic.

SOURCE for the recovered data?

It would have been erased? WHY? So we could have another "paper shredding scandal" except digitally?

If SOME data were recovered, WHOOPIE... did you read the quotes i took the time to post for you earlier in the thread from the SEC and Secret Service saying THEY LOST EVERYTHING? Remember those?

Originally posted by Griff
It's much easier for "dumb" people to think that fires felled three fireproofed steel buildings that day, than fire completely destroyed all evidence of wrongdoing.

...

Why?

Originally posted by Stiney

Originally posted by Griff
It's much easier for "dumb" people to think that fires felled three fireproofed steel buildings that day, than fire completely destroyed all evidence of wrongdoing.

...

Why?

Because everyone has seen what a fire leaves behind (half burnt book, scorched walls, etc.). Not many have seen the aftermath of a 40+ story building totally collapsing.

Also... I do not know how you are getting away with the one liners... much less the one word responses.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Stiney
Other buildings at relatively the same distance were clearly hit, there are photographs that show they were in range of the debris...

And yet they didn't burn and fall like a CD? Hmmm....

If we didn't know whether the others burned uncontrolled for hours, but we did know that they suffered similar damage, I believe it would be reasonable to assume that they did burn. But we know that they didn't. Does that mean someone is lying? No, it just means that would be a false assumption. I will admit that saying WTC 7 had the same damage based on the damage of the other buildings could also be a false assumption, but until someone provides evidence that WTC 7 was not damaged in the same fashion, it is a reasonable assumption that it was. The point is that people are stating that it could not have been damaged the way it was reported to have been damaged - and I have given a strong reason to believe that it could have been, since the damage to the other buildings matches what was reported concerning WTC 7. And if these other steel buildings had had large uncontrolled fires for hours then most likely they would have collapsed as well because of the already compromised structure.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Stiney]

It would have been erased? WHY? So we could have another "paper shredding scandal" except digitally?

I already told you why. If the hard drive went through the collapse of a building, would you expect it to be recovered? No... so if the data was irrecoverable, who would suspect that it was deliberately erased?

Originally posted by Stiney
I already told you why. If the hard drive went through the collapse of a building, would you expect it to be recovered? No... so if the data was irrecoverable, who would suspect that it was deliberately erased?

this is stupid. I have a VERY simple task for you and the other officil conspiracy guys...

Prove the collapse of WTC 7 was natural.

Should be simple.. the gov. is on your side.

Please use the thread below so I do not derail this piece of AWESOMENESS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...