My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

* * * * * * * * * A T T E N T I O N * * * * * * * * *

Enough with the sniping and personal comments. The thread title is "My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!"

We are free to debate/discuss pro or con regarding the OP. Personal attacks/ad homs will be actioned. You all seem to enjoy participating in this forum. Have fun, enjoy the debate, but please leave the interpersonal garbage at the door.

Thanks!

reply to post by thedman


You went to a lot of trouble to link photos but they do not cut it. They simply show a pile of rubble but I agree they are from 9/11. You provided the description as you see them but it does not match what the photos show.

I merely stated that Building 7 collapsed on its foot print just like a professional demolitions job. I never said that the debris disappeared into thin air.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have no doubt that people within the government have been lying about 911 in order to cover their asses.

How then can you have any confidence in the findings of the 9/11 Commission, if I am correct that you accept its conclusions. The Commission was mandated to "prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks"? Can anyone truly think the Commission fulfilled its mandate?

The Commission failed to hold to account any of those you suspect of lying to "cover their asses," although criminal referrals were considered in the case of the Pentagon's and FAA's collusion and perjury.

Haven't we seen enough of these frustrating exercises in official whitewashing to recognize yet another as blatant as was the 9/11 Commission?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Master_007
... this passport was about the only bit of paper ever discovered from any of the three buildings that fell down on 9/11.

So, now that Alfie has shown this to be a ridiculous lie, do you feel like you need to re-evaluate your investigative abilities, in the light of this error?

I think he focused on the passport of one of the so called terrorists because of its anomalous survival.What he should have said was that it was ironic that a passport of a "hijacker" survived the fireball of the exploding aircraft hitting the WTC. This same passport then seemed to survive the collapsing building.

So can you tell us if there was any other passports that survived the catastrophe?

Originally posted by Elbereth

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have no doubt that people within the government have been lying about 911 in order to cover their asses.

How then can you have any confidence in the findings of the 9/11 Commission, if I am correct that you accept its conclusions. The Commission was mandated to "prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks"? Can anyone truly think the Commission fulfilled its mandate?

The Commission failed to hold to account any of those you suspect of lying to "cover their asses," although criminal referrals were considered in the case of the Pentagon's and FAA's collusion and perjury.

Haven't we seen enough of these frustrating exercises in official whitewashing to recognize yet another as blatant as was the 9/11 Commission?

But we are talking about WTC7 and the collapses of the WTC Towers. The 9/11CR had to do with the investigations into the failures of all levels in intelligence, bureaucratic red tape, interagency rivalry, and a whole host of incompetence. Also it investigated the response of first responders, government officials, and the behavior of the agencies during the event, and actions taken afterword and who was ultimately responsible for the attacks. You are right, it was a whitewash. They covered their asses well, as who is willing to admit that because of their gross negligence, over 3000 Americans were killed and billions of dollars in damages done. Would you like to take the blame for it? I sure asll wouldnt want to admit that because I left an important slip of intel under an empty pizza box in the office, I allowed terrorists to come in and pull off their attack.

But what does this have to do with WTC7?

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


I think he's quite capable of writing his own sentences, thanks very much.

anyways, yes:

Four of the hijackers’ passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines Flight 11. A passerby picked it up and gave it to an NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth Staff Statement No. 1 2 passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston onto the connecting flight, which was American Airlines Flight 11.

link

Probably there were some victims' IDs that survived also from the plane, but since these were all domestic flights, few of them would have been carrying passports. There is nothing impossible about a passport surviving an explosion.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by thedman

 

You went to a lot of trouble to link photos but they do not cut it. ...
I merely stated that Building 7 collapsed on its foot print just like a professional demolitions job. I never said that the debris disappeared into thin air.

edit on 6-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

This aerial photo clearly shows building 7's remains covering parts of all the surrounding streets, and also shows damage to adjacent buildings. All of this indicates that a whole lot of building 7 did not fall "in its own footprint". This has been known since 2001. Truthers continue to use the line "into its own footprint" because it sounds technical and is used to describe controlled demolitions. But it is just a lie.

link

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Since you are the only person on earth who thinks it is relevant, even among truthers, you must understand I am not putting any more time in beating this dead horse.

Yeah, you are like two religious groups. Neither side can figure out what is relevant. About everyone that can has dropped out of the ridiculous conversations. This is the result of the physics profession not shooting the nonsense down in 2002. Airliners couldn't do it and which conspiracy was responsible is totally irrelevant to that. So the conspiracy lover cling to their preferred conspiracy and don't care about the physics.

10,000 pages and no total for the concrete specified.

psik

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


Have problem understanding that the debris crossed a 4 lane street - Barclay St and smashed the building
there at 30 West Broadway ......




That is some "footprint"

So explain how if landed in "own foorprint" 30 West Broadway was crushed .....?

reply to post by -PLB-

The Delft

Oh, come on. Let's have a moment of honesty. The Delft building does not collapse into its own footprint – it collapses partially and asymmetrically, not globally and symmetrically like WTC7, and neither was it steel-framed. Below is the collapse of the Delft building. Compare it to the collapse of WTC7. They aren't the same. One collapses globally, the other one collapses partially, and remember according to NIST, WTC7 only had fires on about 8 floors, which leaves 39 floors untouched by fire, and yet, the building still comes down at free-fall acceleration into its own footprint. I think the phrase 'comparing apples and oranges' is appropriate here.


Does the partial collapse above look anything like the global collapse below? Not to me.

Or else where did you get this idea from?

By reading the paper (or a substantial portion of it a few years back). NIST seem to be presenting their assumptions and conjectures as known facts, you see. What is the difference between them? As I see it, in practical terms assumptions and conjectures are ideas that you think could be true, whereas facts are what you know to be true because they have been confirmed by observation. By this criterion the NIST's report contains only assumptions and conjectures and no significant known facts. I know that is a sweeping judgment to make of it but I also know it to be true by my own direct observation, ie. by reading the paper itself. As I have pointed out before, NIST's evidence and conclusions are based entirely on the product of their computer-simulations, not the product of observation. So as far as I can see there is no real-world evidence in NIST's paper for a fire-induced collapse as you are claiming. If there is any in any other independent papers as you are claiming which substantiates NIST's findings, I would not know, as I have not read them.

That is new to me and I suspect that you confuse AE911 Truth for scientific literature, but if not please share.

Gordon Ross, David Chandler, Steven Jones, inter alia, I believe have submitted papers.

I agree that it isn't a very good move to keep their models private. Yet I have to ask, has a group of researchers ever tried to get access to those models but were denied? I can imagine that a genuine group of researches will be able to get access, and I think this is something that can actually be achieved in a court of law.

Yes, I believe they have. But NIST refused on the basis that it would 'jeopardize public safety'. There's a video on the first page that gives a short summary. Surely you can appreciate our problem as ordinary members of the public who are outsiders to the closed circle of NIST that possesses the computer-models that is delivering the 'physics of WTC7's collapse' to the world in general.

They were not by NIST but mostly by independent parties, and only a very few opposed the theory from NIST.

How interesting. What evidence within these papers has been convincing for you specifically?

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

There is nothing impossible about a passport surviving an explosion.

Who said about anything being impossible but you?

I suggest that it would be unlikely that any passport would survive especially when the airplanes that struck the WTC allegedly vapourised and only a few heavy components survived.

If the flight was an internal one and passengers were not required to carry passports, why was it only the alleged hijackers were carrying passports they did not use? They apparently were in the US for sometime and they had drivers licenses which they used to board the aircraft.

Some of the 9/11 hijackers boarded the planes they later used as weapons with driver’s licenses and state identification cards they never should have been able to legally obtain. Some even had multiple IDs. That discovery galvanized state officials and federal lawmakers to make driver’s licenses more secure.

www.fronterasdesk.org...-Q

Further still, the apparently recovered passport showed no sign of damage.





One wonders why there is no charred edges, torn pages, or smudges on the internal pages of a passport that fluttered to the ground.

The discolouration on the spine of the passport looks more like rubbings than charring.

Then one considers how the passport was discovered.

The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001.

Page 37, 9/11 Commission Staff Statement

www.9-11commission.gov...

So the passport was apparently discovered by an unidentified stranger in the one hour window between the airplanes striking the WTC and the collapse of the buildings.

There was debris everywhere, people's personal possessions strewn in the streets, aircraft parts, body parts, people were leaping out of windows and sploshing on the sidewalk and some stranger picks up a passport that is in good condition and then looks for a police man and gives it to him because he thinks it is important!

Improbable!

Originally posted by GenRadek
You are right, it was a whitewash. They covered their asses well, as who is willing to admit that because of their gross negligence, over 3000 Americans were killed and billions of dollars in damages done. Would you like to take the blame for it? I sure asll wouldnt want to admit that because I left an important slip of intel under an empty pizza box in the office, I allowed terrorists to come in and pull off their attack.

But what does this have to do with WTC7?

To my way of thinking when WTC 7 is the topic its ommission from the Commission is fair game. General, are you in favor of a new investigation that would identify and punish those who were guilty of "gross negligence"?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

Have problem understanding that the debris crossed a 4 lane street - Barclay St and smashed the building
there at 30 West Broadway ......




That is some "footprint"

So explain how if landed in "own foorprint" 30 West Broadway was crushed .....?

Perhaps you have a problem understanding the term "collapsing on its own foot print". Could it be that you in fact think that I am claiming that Building 7 ended up in a neat pile of debris where it stood?

The phrase, "collapsing on its own foot print" means exactly what it says; the building went straight down. Where the pile of building debris ended up around the base is not the issue.

Originally posted by Elbereth
wed terrorists to come in and pull off their attack.

But what does this have to do with WTC7?

To my way of thinking when WTC 7 is the topic its ommission from the Commission is fair game. General, are you in favor of a new investigation that would identify and punish those who were guilty of "gross negligence"?

By why should it have been mentioned in the 9/11 CR? The 9/11CR was regarding intel failures and actions taken prior to and through 9/11. It was not tasked with how and why the Towers fell. Also not included in the CR: WTC 4, 5, 6, or any of the buildings damaged by the collapses. WTC7 was collateral. I do not see where WTC7 would have any relevance to what the 9/11 CR was tasked to report.

Maybe you can read through it and show me where exactly they should mention it:
9/11 CR

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

Perhaps you have a problem understanding the term "collapsing on its own foot print". Could it be that you in fact think that I am claiming that Building 7 ended up in a neat pile of debris where it stood?

The phrase, "collapsing on its own foot print" means exactly what it says; the building went straight down. Where the pile of building debris ended up around the base is not the issue.

You are trying to weasel out.....

Collapse in "own footprint" usually means debris stays within that perimeter.......

Also WTC 7 did not collapse "straight down" as you claim ....

It slid to the north landing on 30 West Broadway across the highway

Again show you the picture of the debris

Originally posted by GenRadek

Maybe you can read through it and show me where exactly they should mention it:

How about anywhere? Their mandate was to "prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." It is hardly a "full and complete" account sans WTC7.

Originally posted by Flatcoat

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Juanxlink

 

Remember those at the BBC knowing-reporting it beforehand?

More silliness.

Part of the problem of the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement".

They never deal in facts, only in rumors, and hear-say and the same ole', same ole' that has become so prevalent.

Excuse me, but what EVIDENCE do you have that fire cused the collapse of WTC7? Please present your research material here for us to be able to agree with you.

Hopefully, there will be future generations of people who will learn, by examining the EVIDENCE, rather than simply 'judging' from RUMOR.

Just to clarify, you're saying it's only a rumor that the BBC reported the collapse before it happened?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

Perhaps you have a problem understanding the term "collapsing on its own foot print". Could it be that you in fact think that I am claiming that Building 7 ended up in a neat pile of debris where it stood?

The phrase, "collapsing on its own foot print" means exactly what it says; the building went straight down. Where the pile of building debris ended up around the base is not the issue.

You are trying to weasel out.....

Collapse in "own footprint" usually means debris stays within that perimeter.......

Also WTC 7 did not collapse "straight down" as you claim ....

It slid to the north landing on 30 West Broadway across the highway

Again show you the picture of the debris

Weasel out of what? Your obtuse take on the words I used?

Once again "collapsing on its own foot print" means the building is fell straight down. You have invented your own definition of that expression to force through your own agenda.

You bandy around photos of rubble like a totem no one wants to look at. Who cares about the shape of rubble but you.

Building 7 went straight down like it was imploded by expert demolitions. You official believers are knackered and can only hold on to your position by misrepresenting others.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Who said about anything being impossible but you?

I suggest that it would be unlikely that any passport would survive especially when the airplanes that struck the WTC allegedly vapourised and only a few heavy components survived.

If the flight was an internal one and passengers were not required to carry passports, why was it only the alleged hijackers were carrying passports they did not use? They apparently were in the US for sometime and they had drivers licenses which they used to board the aircraft.

Some of the 9/11 hijackers boarded the planes they later used as weapons with driver’s licenses and state identification cards they never should have been able to legally obtain. Some even had multiple IDs. That discovery galvanized state officials and federal lawmakers to make driver’s licenses more secure.

www.fronterasdesk.org...-Q

Further still, the apparently recovered passport showed no sign of damage.

One wonders why there is no charred edges, torn pages, or smudges on the internal pages of a passport that fluttered to the ground.

The discolouration on the spine of the passport looks more like rubbings than charring.

Then one considers how the passport was discovered.

The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001.

Page 37, 9/11 Commission Staff Statement

www.9-11commission.gov...

So the passport was apparently discovered by an unidentified stranger in the one hour window between the airplanes striking the WTC and the collapse of the buildings.

There was debris everywhere, people's personal possessions strewn in the streets, aircraft parts, body parts, people were leaping out of windows and sploshing on the sidewalk and some stranger picks up a passport that is in good condition and then looks for a police man and gives it to him because he thinks it is important!

Improbable!

edit on 6-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

1. The plane was NOT alleged to be vapourised.

2. The quote you cite alleges that SOME of the highjackers had other forms of ID that were used to board the planes.

3. Sure, it's remarkable that the passport shows no sign of damage. I guess we have no idea why that is so, but there are many possibilities. Perhaps the passport was in a piece of luggage during the explosion, even a passport protector. Who knows.

4. What would you do if you found a Saudi Passport in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack? What's so improbable about one person out of the tens of thousands on the scene picking up one single piece of evidence Indicating the prescence of someone who would be later identified as a terrorist... What if they had picked up the drivers' licence of one of the innocent passengers.. would that be "improbable?"

Your whole line boils down to personal incredulity. Not persuasive in the least.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Once again "collapsing on its own foot print" means the building is fell straight down. You have invented your own definition of that expression to force through your own agenda.

Building 7 went straight down like it was imploded by expert demolitions.

Those are both lies. What part of the words "collapsing into its own footprint" is ambiguous in any way? How can it possibly construed to mean "fell straight down". I defy you to find one single pre-9/11 use of the words "collapsed into its own footprint" that is used to describe a building that crossed four traffic lanes and damaged other buildings! Or indeed anything but the plain english interpretation of the words according to dictionary definitions!

It is the truthers who have decided to redefine the phrase...