posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:45 AM
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Do you all realize that if WTC 7 were to have succumbed to structural damage sustained by a collapsing WTC 1, and not by buckling of column 79 due to
a girder unseating due to thermal expansion, it would completely and totally invalidate the NIST report on WTC 7?
You can't have your cake and eat it too, just a reminder.
I don't know whether NIST got WTC 7 right or wrong but I certainly don't have relevant expertise to argue with them.
However, call it intellectual laziness if you like, but I don't find I need to get as far as NIST because I am as certain as I can be that WTC 7 was
not a cd by virtue of other factors.
To provide a cause for war or justification for repressive legislation then the destruction of WTC 7 added nothing to the destruction of the Towers
(same goes for UA 93 and the Pentagon in my view). No-one was going to say "well the destruction of the towers was terrible but what would have
really got me behind the war on terror was if they had got WTC 7 as well."
The only reasons I have seen put forward to justify the destruction of WTC 7 seem to me to be lame and contrived. (a) That there was evidence and
secret stuff in WTC 7 that needed to be lost for ever and/or (b) to make Larry Silverstein richer by way of an insurance scam. In the case of (a) it
seems to me absurd to suggest that the optimum way of destroying secret stuff was to blow the building up with the risk of dispersing it all over
Manhattan. As for (b), obviously Larry Silverstein didn't have the resources to carry out 9/11 on his own so the perps must have risked extending the
plot quite unnecessarily just to help Larry make some money. (if indeed he did make any money) .
But the total clincher for me is this. Anyone believing WTC 7 was a cd must accept that the original plan was just to blow it up, as it stood, in
broad daylight. The alleged cd's of the towers were disguised by having planes flown into them but no disguise was apparently planned for WTC 7 and
that I suggest is simply not credible. The fact that WTC 7 was hit by falling debris, fires were started and the water supply cut off was pure chance
and couldn't have been planned.
So I don't get too hung up about NIST, which I am not competent to deal with, because I am as certain as I can be that WTC 7 was simply collateral
damage along with WTCs 3,4,5 & 6..