WTC 7 - Why?

Originally posted by Griff

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.

No. Don't take quotes out of context. I said there were other factors that would affect what is naturally possible. It's not every day that hundreds of thousands of tons of debris rain down on surrounding buildings. Normally WTC 7 or any building like it could not have collapsed naturally. But it's a lot more possible considering the VERY unique circumstances. On the other hand: Normally it's impossible for CD to take down a burning building completely silently and without flashes. What were the circumstances that would suddenly allow the technology to be possible?

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

You can't base your "evidence" on the assumption that this secret technology exists. This is the downfall of all conspiracy theories. You just have to make up a possibility and build your arguments from there to prove that you're being lied to. When asked to support the basis, you have to say "Huh? How are we supposed to know? It's a secret! They're lying!" It's circular reasoning.

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.

You ignored what I wrote right after that that shows why it's not solid reasoning:

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.

First, we've given plenty of rational reasons, you're just not listening.

Reasons have been given and I do not see them as rational, and I'm explaining why. You totally skipped over my explanation. Either you're in a hurry or you did this deliberately to make it look like you're ahead.

Second, I either missed something or what are you talking about "backups"?

There were backups. This was even acknowledged in sources cited by someone who tried to counter my arguments.

Originally posted by Pootie

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...

Still waiting.

We played along with you for nine pages...

Now... why don't you go do what you are asking us to do?

Come on... you have MILLIONS in tax dollars worth of "research" to back you up... we don't. should be a simple task.

PROVE WTC 7 COLLAPSED NATURALLY here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Pootie

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.

Clearly windows were shattered during the collapse. The fact that "walls and contents" were probably still there means that the sound had nowhere else to go. How would flash be suppressed? Think about what you're saying.

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.

No, I read it alright. He said they could control sound levels, and didn't mention anything about flashes. Does his statement mean they can make it so it makes NO noise? Nope - that's why I said you should ask specifically if they could make no noise or flashes, AND WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO DO IT, which is also very important because even if it's possible we have to look at whether the required methods could have been used at WTC7 based on what we know of it.

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.

Faulty logic is right. Did I say they had to NOT EXPLODE? No - I said they would need to be fireproof. Do the methods used to make no sound and no flash be used if you use explosives that aren't set off by fire? Can you use explosives that aren't set off by fire in addition to satisfying the requirements of no sound and no flash? What if the wires are damaged? The receivers that initiate the detonators? Has a burning building ever been brought down by CD?

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

I don't think anyone has asked for it before.

Then what are you waiting for? Ask for it. Ask if it's possible. What it would take. I'm still waiting.

Silverstein, Fires, explosive noise, Data Destruction.... You have failed to "wrap up" any of these loose ends.

Which point have I not responded to?

HOW DID WTC 7 COLLAPSE NATURALLY?

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

Your point? Have they been studying it for six years?

...

Well, have they?

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Stiney]

Now... why don't you go do what you are asking us to do?

Because first of all I'm not asking you to prove explosives were used - I asked you to provide a plausible motive, as a starting point. Second you want to abandon this discussion and refer me to another thread and demand that I address that instead. If you're not interested in my thread, don't participate in it. Third, your demand is not reasonable. I'm not qualified to offer any definitive explanation. You say I have millions of dollars in research. What? No, I don't. I'm just a guy browsing the internet, and so are you.
And before you try to turn this around and say "well we aren't qualified to answer your question either," consider that you don't have anyone who is qualified. Are you suggesting that NIST isn't?

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by Stiney
Because first of all I'm not asking you to prove explosives were used - I asked you to provide a plausible motive, as a starting point.

As a starting point?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the physics of the collapse are infinitely more reliable than whether or not you can guess all the motives.

Originally posted by Stiney
Clearly windows were shattered during the collapse.

Relevance?

Originally posted by Stiney
The fact that "walls and contents" were probably still there means that the sound had nowhere else to go. How would flash be suppressed? Think about what you're saying.

Sheetrock, plaster, office contents would all obscure light and absorb sound.

Think about what you are saying.

Bonus: The largest charges would be in the basement to sever the columns at the base... wouldn't see those.

Originally posted by StineyNo, I read it alright. He said they could control sound levels, and didn't mention anything about flashes. Does his statement mean they can make it so it makes NO noise? Nope - that's why I said you should ask specifically if they could make no noise or flashes,

The goal does not require "no noise" or "no flashes". NYC is LOUD especially on 9/11 with all the alarms etc. going off... Silence is not required. Flashes are OK as long as the TINTED windows and interior walls of WTC 7 were still in plce at the time of detonation. This would obscure the flash with drywall dust, etc.

Originally posted by StineyFaulty logic is right. Did I say they had to NOT EXPLODE? No - I said they would need to be fireproof.

No, some could fail and the building would still come down. They would obviously have made the devices redundant in case some were burned or failed. Simple project management.

Originally posted by Stiney
Your point? Have they been studying it for six years?

...

Well, have they?

They could be jerking off for all the American Public knows... Go to the thread in my sig an SUPPORT YOUR STANCE.

Originally posted by Stiney
Because first of all I'm not asking you to prove explosives were used - I asked you to provide a plausible motive, as a starting point. Second you want to abandon this discussion and refer me to another thread and demand that I address that instead. If you're not interested in my thread, don't participate in it.

Kleenex time...

PLAUSIBLE:

1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.
2. well-spoken and apparently, but often deceptively, worthy of confidence or trust: a plausible commentator.

According to the definition of PLAUSIBLE we have achieved your goal.

What you REALLY ASKED is for us to PROVE a particular motive as fact... this is evident in your course of argument.

Your quoted, stated goal above is dishonest at best.

Step up to the plate like we have and back up your natural collapse theory. Sack up.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Pootie]

If you've ever watched a CD, it can be heard throughout the WHOLE city. You're saying that sheetrock and the sounds in the streets would be enough to muffle this so even the people standing right there wouldn't hear a thing. The relevance of windows being blown out is that you said the windows would contribute to muffling the noise. Without windows, they can't contribute much. And if the walls and contents trap the noise, where else does it have to go? Out the windows.

This is not the direction I wanted this thread to go...

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by Stiney
If you've ever watched a CD, it can be heard throughout the WHOLE city.

Yes, when noise is not a concern.

Originally posted by Stiney
You're saying that sheetrock and the sounds in the streets would be enough to muffle this so even the people standing right there wouldn't hear a thing.

Yes. Lower brisance charges are quieter + in the common demolitions you reference EVERYTHING is removed from the building prior to it going BOOM. Walls, carpet, furniture, windows...

Think of setting off a stick of TNT in a building with no windows... then think of doing it in a "sealed" one with some sheet rock in between... there will be a huge difference in the propagation/absorption of the sound AND shock wave.

Originally posted by Stiney
The relevance of windows being blown out is that you said the windows would contribute to muffling the noise. Without windows, that doesn't work well. And if the walls and contents trap the noise, where else does it have to go? Out the windows.

Depends if the windows break before or after the charges go off and the sequencing of the charges.

Originally posted by Stiney
This is not the direction I wanted this thread to go...

Then stop responding.

According to the definition of PLAUSIBLE we have achieved your goal.

In your opinion.

The whole point of this discussion is to decide if your reasons make sense. You have not convinced me that they do. I have stated why I'm not convinced and asked many questions to help you support your opinion or come up with something new. Can we go back to that? I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for reasoning. There are two sides here. You can't just state that your answers are perfectly reasonable and then change the topic. If you are interested in a different topic, post in a different topic. This thread is my topic, my interest, and the reason I'm here.

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by Stiney
This is not the direction I wanted this thread to go...

Then stop responding.

At first when I ignored unrelated points and points already mentioned, you called me out. Fine, I'll stop responding again. Fair enough. This time don't treat me like a coward if I ignore unrelated points, okay? Stay on topic, and stop demanding that I post in another thread.

Like I said before,

the physics of the collapse are infinitely more reliable than whether or not you can guess all the motives.

I'm sticking to it, because it actually makes sense.

Originally posted by Stiney
If you've ever watched a CD, it can be heard throughout the WHOLE city.

That's because high explosives detonate in such a way that they create massive overpressures immediately around them. Lower-velocity explosives that apply intense heat don't have this problem, and neither would any other cutting device that used any method besides sheer pressure.

Think outside of the box. You don't have to use RDX to cut a column. Anyone engineering these demolitions would've known that, and taken advantage of the fact. Your failure to realize this just keeps you from forming a more realistic view of how this would have gone down.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Stiney
Because first of all I'm not asking you to prove explosives were used - I asked you to provide a plausible motive, as a starting point.

As a starting point?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the physics of the collapse are infinitely more reliable than whether or not you can guess all the motives.

Then leave the discussion already.

Originally posted by Stiney
The whole point of this discussion is to decide if your reasons make sense. You have not convinced me that they do. I have stated why I'm not convinced and asked many questions to help you support your opinion or come up with something new. Can we go back to that? I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for reasoning. There are two sides here. You can't just state that your answers are perfectly reasonable and then change the topic. If you are interested in a different topic, post in a different topic. This thread is my topic, my interest, and the reason I'm here.

So, do you want PLAUSIBLE as stated above... a criterion that has been met according to the definition of the word... OR do YOU want to be CONVINCED that one of the PLAUSIBLE reasons has enough merit for YOU to accept it as a "Good Reason" to blow WTC 7?

You are stating two different goals... which is it?

It is VERY plausible that if 9/11 was all CD that it was controlled from Rudy's bunker and that destroying it makes sense.

It is VERY plausible that Silverstein was promised demolition of the whole complex if 9/11 was CD.

It is VERY plausible that if 9/11 was all CD that ranking officials might have wanted many "things" in WTC 7 destroyed... never to return.

It is VERY plausible Silverstein thought he would make $$$ off of it's demise.

NOW... Since you obviously DO NOT believe 9/11 was a CD then YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE IN ANY REASON WHY WTC 7 HAD TO GO. You have created a paradox... a trap for anyone "answering" your infinite loop of a question.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Stiney
Then leave the discussion already.

Sadly for you that is not how this works... You CAN however, put any of us on IGNORE and not see our postings.

Originally posted by Stiney
At first when I ignored unrelated points and points already mentioned, you called me out. Fine, I'll stop responding again. Fair enough. This time don't treat me like a coward if I ignore unrelated points, okay? Stay on topic, and stop demanding that I post in another thread.

Funny thing about life... you cannot control the words of others. I will continue to openly state my opinions on this site within the terms and conditions laid out.

In other words... do not demand that I respond in a certain way.

Thanks,

Pootie

Originally posted by Stiney
Then leave the discussion already.

There is absolutely nothing preventing me from pointing out the fallacious logic this whole thread is based upon.

You're afraid to focus on the physics because it's harder to argue about, than arguing over the motives we can only try to guess.

Originally posted by Griff
you people want the conspirators to be omnipotent.

I want them to be smart. If you want to blow something up and make it look like an accident, and you've created a huge cloud of dust where it could be hidden, and don't use it, that's stupid.

Originally posted by Stiney
If you want to blow something up and make it look like an accident, and you've created a huge cloud of dust where it could be hidden, and don't use it, that's stupid.

Maybe that was the original intention and it failed.

That would explain the odd amount of time it took to smolder and finally collapse... Someone had to figure out what went wrong...

Just conjecture.

Originally posted by Stiney
I want them to be smart.

Nice backhanded insult to just about everyone on this board.