WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

Originally posted by baboo

Originally posted by Alfie1
Thanks again for further various responses but I was really hoping that members would address the situation at the WTC as I set out in the op.

WTC 7 is often quoted by truthers as a "smoking gun " proving controlled demolition but I suggest that, on the contrary, it in fact proves a gaping hole in truther theories.

What I think people need to do is to look back and consider what alleged perps must have planned if they rigged WTC 1, 2,&7. The obvious inference is that the intention was to bring down all 3 buildings on 9/11. So, how did they intend that to look ? Their lives were on the line so effective cover-up was essential. And indeed, for WTC 1 & 2 there was very elaborate cover-up. Planes flown into them and a cd so sophisticated that it could apparently be initiated from the plane impact points.

But then, as regards WTC 7 they evidently made no provision for cover-up at all. You have to forget about WTC 7 being hit by debris from WTC 1 because that happened by chance and could not have been part of the planning.

Therefore, if you believe WTC 7 was a cd, you have believe that the perps planned its demolition to go ahead as it stood there in perfect order and in sight of likely thousands of witnesses.

I suggest that this is so wildly improbable as to amount to reasonable proof that WTC 7 was not a cd. It was collateral damage from a terrorist attack on the Towers.

Alfie, your logic is flawed. You're looking for something to keep you from facing the truth. Buildings do not fall at free-fall speed. NIST even admitted that the building went through a free-fall phase. There were other buildings that were damaged by debris but did not fall. As for the towers, they were designed to redistribute load in the event of a catastrophic impact. There has been one such accident in the 40s when a bomber flew into the Empire State Building. The architect that was involved in the design stated a few months prior to the impact that the towers could withstand multiple impacts from that size aircraft. In all history there have been only 3 hirises that 'fell' supposedly due to fire, the two towers and WTC7. Time to wake up.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by baboo]

You say my logic is flawed but you then don't address my logic at all; you just launch into usual truther mode with " buildings do not fall at free-fall speed " etc.

That is not logical.

I really am beginning to think that truthers, by their silence , are admitting that they cannot come up with any credible explanation as to why the perps ( if their theories are true ) must have planned to demolish WTC 7 as it stood while desperately covering-up cd of the Towers.

A situation which I suggest is so absurd that it cannot possibly be true.

Please, this thread is not about "free-fall", "small fires", "own foot-print" etc etc etc ( there are pages of that elsewhere and it is all covered by NIST in their discrete WTC 7 report.) It is about the glaring discrepancy between alleged huge cover-up of cd at the Towers versus no cover-up at all at WTC 7.

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK that second picture was the McCormick Place fire in Chicago. The heavy steel trusses failed from fire alone. I thought steel cannot fail and drop down from fires and need explosives to make it happen.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK

 

ANOK that second picture was the McCormick Place fire in Chicago. The heavy steel trusses failed from fire alone. I thought steel cannot fail and drop down from fires and need explosives to make it happen.

Dude that building did not globally collapse through the path of most resistance. The only thing that collapsed was the roof. A partial collapse of one part of the buildings structure that did not cause the rest to globally collapse into its footprint.

All four walls did not end up ON TOP of the debris pile, that is the important point, not failing trusses. No one said trusses can not fail, what I said is trusses failing can not cause a complete global collapse with all four walls landing ON TOP of the debris pile.

(the argument of fires not causing failure comes from WTC 2 and the ONE hours worth of fire, please don't confuse things.)

Again if you can find a high rise building with many floors that collapsed like WTC 7, all four walls MUST be ON TOP of the debris pile, then I'll listen. Good luck, you'll need it.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I really am beginning to think that truthers, by their silence , are admitting that they cannot come up with any credible explanation as to why the perps ( if their theories are true ) must have planned to demolish WTC 7 as it stood while desperately covering-up cd of the Towers.

But do we really need to answer this question?

I can't answer it without speculating, so what's the point? So it gives you something to argue about?

How did all four walls end up ON TOP of the debris pile, that is what you should be concerned with, because unless there was a miracle that day, no matter if people can't explain how the 'perps' did it, they obviously did.

What do you mean they set it up while desperately covering-up cd of the Towers? Don't you think it all could have all been set up months, even years, before 9-11. It could have taken years to set up, who would have noticed?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Alfie1
I really am beginning to think that truthers, by their silence , are admitting that they cannot come up with any credible explanation as to why the perps ( if their theories are true ) must have planned to demolish WTC 7 as it stood while desperately covering-up cd of the Towers.

But do we really need to answer this question?

I can't answer it without speculating, so what's the point? So it gives you something to argue about?

How did all four walls end up ON TOP of the debris pile, that is what you should be concerned with, because unless there was a miracle that day, no matter if people can't explain how the 'perps' did it, they obviously did.

What do you mean they set it up while desperately covering-up cd of the Towers? Don't you think it all could have all been set up months, even years, before 9-11. It could have taken years to set up, who would have noticed?

Yes, you do need to answer it. It is the subject of the thread.

If you can't, perhaps you need to rethink whether WTC 7 was a cd.

If things were set up months, years before 9/11, all the more reason to have organized a cover-up for WTC 7 wouldn't you think ? I'm not asking how the alleged perps rigged WTC 7 but why they would do anything so lunatic without any cover having gone to so much trouble over the Towers with planes and sophisticated cd's from points of impact.

WT7 contained information on serious financial fraud investigations, which was destroyed. That alone is motivation.

I've just been reading a discussion on another forumwww.godlikeproductions.com... where an alleged military whistleblower says
they intended to hit WTC with an airplane too, but something went wrong.But they still had to blow up the building because it was wired with explosives and would have been discovered had it not been blown up.

I also saw this thread on the mysterious deaths of 9/11 key witnesses. It's quite startling.

Originally posted by wcitizen



WT7 contained information on serious financial fraud investigations, which was destroyed. That alone is motivation.

I've just been reading a discussion on another forumwww.godlikeproductions.com... where an alleged military whistleblower says
they intended to hit WTC with an airplane too, but something went wrong.But they still had to blow up the building because it was wired with explosives and would have been discovered had it not been blown up.

I also saw this thread on the mysterious deaths of 9/11 key witnesses. It's quite startling.

OK, thanks for at least vaguely addressing the subject. You say there was motivation to destroy WTC 7 and that they intended to hit it with an airplane but what airplane was that and what went wrong ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
If you can't, perhaps you need to rethink whether WTC 7 was a cd.

No I don't because the fact that all four walls ended up ON TOP of the debris pile sort of makes all your points irrelevant.

There is only one way for a building to fall into it's own footprint.

If you can show evidence that it's possible from fire I'll listen, otherwise you're just dancing around the elephant in this thread.

(Sorry if it's not on topic enough for you, but we're talking about WTC 7 and the claim there is no evidence for an inside job right? How did it collapse into it's own footprint without inside help?)

On the topic of WTC7...


mainstream media acknowledge WTC 7 demolition

reply to post by spiritualzombie


But I thought the MSM lied about everything?

Or do they only lie if they disagree with you?

reply to post by spiritualzombie


Richard Gage is a joke . He is also a liar .

I stopped watching when I got to the part where he said there was thermite proven to be in all of the dust spread over Manhattan , "several tons of it" .

And this was after I suffered through him alleging pools of molten iron , while talking about WTC7 .

He is the perfect poster-boy for the truth movement .

Is everybody aware that WTC7 was a relatively new building completed in 1987 which means it was only 14 years old.

Makes you wonder???

reply to post by JohnJasper


" You ignore the physical evidence because it doesn't fit with your viewpoint and because you can't fathom an acceptable motive or plot. "

See , this is where you are mistaken . The physical evidence actually supports my viewpoint . Furthermore , I can fathom several motives and plots . I entertained numerous motives and plots at one time . You see , I was a 'truther' myself , at one time .

I even proposed some theories of my very own .

But , the further I researched , the more I came to realize that my theories , as well as most that are posted on this site , are flawed and lacking and don't hold up to serious scrutiny .

With that in mind , don't just assume that I am a blind follower of what you refer to as the 'OS' .

the best thing is that even to this day, the US government of AMERICA, land of the free, didnt provide enough material to prove one of the many theories

its just laughable, since, well, they started a freaking WAR over this

this just shows our world is f$&&*¨98up#¨%684, and no matter what you believe, the science and the math dont lie, and they didnt even bother to use it

reply to post by Alfie1

ok Alfie1 you should know how this start you know prescote bush
. The central charge against Prescott Bush has a basis in fact. In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized several companies all bush are nazi what do you have to say to this did you know that donald rumsfeld was the directore of the companie that make today the h1n1 vaccine alot off money for him they sold like 6000 trillions no you didint did you know that all food have aspartame i guess no ohh and dick cheny have shares in that ok did sadam had nukes no but gas ok nice try to brain wash maybe they can control the present and the futur but they cant lie on the past ok wath did you know since the bush are in power terro terro antrax antrax sadam have weapon of mass destruction no he donsent ok if they can scare you they can remove your rights ok they are jalouse russia have all the gas in europe lol ohh and just like that do you see any kamikase whit c4 running in the streets no you dont ok so terrorist dont existe. Yes they do its all bush administration




[edit on 7-9-2010 by knowneedtoknow]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by knowneedtoknow]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by knowneedtoknow]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by knowneedtoknow]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by knowneedtoknow]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by knowneedtoknow]

OK, it seems I am not going to get an answer to the subject of this thread ; question :- is it credible perps allegedly elaborately covered up cd of the Towers but planned nothing for WTC 7, evidently planning to blow it up as it stood ?

I give up; but I suppose getting no answer tells me all I wanted to know really.

Originally posted by Alfie1
OK, it seems I am not going to get an answer to the subject of this thread ; question :- is it credible perps allegedly elaborately covered up cd of the Towers but planned nothing for WTC 7, evidently planning to blow it up as it stood ?

I give up; but I suppose getting no answer tells me all I wanted to know really.

Who the hell knows? And why is it important, I don't get it, and probably no one else does, thus why no one has 'answered it'.

What difference does it make? Maybe they were hoping no one would notice 7, and they were right. Not many people know about 7, or pay it any attention.

[edit on 9/7/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
Man, common sense threads are on the rise today. S&F for you for bringing in a little truth to the truthers.

And for those talking about it falling straight down....what tends to happen to a structure when the base of said structure is compromised? If one part of the upper structure shifts, it'll take the rest down with it; not crumble or topple.

Jesus christ

We are supposed to believe that the fire fire ball from 1 disappeared, 7 was evacuated,
fire ball from 1 reappears inside seven, creates an invisible inferno and debris from
1 flys thru the air eliminating all the water pressure from 7???

this whole premise is fooking magic friend!

Religious like conviction

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK, I suggest it is important because if part of a theory ( cd of WTC 1,2&7 ) is not credible then it throws doubt on the whole theory.

I think people consider the damage inflicted on WTC 7 by WTC 1 and dwell on that without considering that that only happened by chance. It couldn't have been part of the plan which, if it was a cd , was evidently just to blow the building up,as it stood, in broad daylight in the middle of New York.

I suggest that scenario, especially given the care supposed to have been lavished on cover up of cd's of WTC 1 & 2, is simply not credible and should lead enquiring people to think more widely about whether WTC 7 was a cd.