Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Zingari]

Suffered extensive structural damage from falling debris off WTC's, coupled with fire damage that lead to it's natural collapse.

that's what NIST concluded and added that " although this is the best hypothesis , it has a very low chance of occurrence"

so basically this means they don't actually believe it themselves

How do you dismiss the near perfect symmetrical nature of the collapse at close to freefall speed and the reports of explosions , that back up the assumption that explosives were used ,

How do you dismiss the firefighters testimony of molten metal in the basement

How do you dismiss Larry Silversteins claim that they made the decision to "pull it"

How do you dismiss danny jowenkos insistence that it was a controlled demolition

How do you dismiss Barry Jennings version of what happened ( he was in WTC 7 at the time )

Sorry WTC7 doesn't resemble at all what a building looks like due to a natural collapse as it's too perfect , buildings collapsing due to random events fall asymmetrically and steel structured buildings never collapse due to fire

But if you can view it as a normal collapse due to random fires and damage , so be it , but I think you're very wrong and so do a growing number of other people

[marko]

that's what NIST concluded and added that " although this is the best hypothesis , it has a very low chance of occurrence"

so basically this means they don't actually believe it themselves

How do you dismiss the near perfect symmetrical nature of the collapse at close to freefall speed and the reports of explosions , that back up the assumption that explosives were used ,

How do you dismiss the firefighters testimony of molten metal in the basement

How do you dismiss Larry Silversteins claim that they made the decision to "pull it"

How do you dismiss danny jowenkos insistence that it was a controlled demolition

How do you dismiss Barry Jennings version of what happened ( he was in WTC 7 at the time )

Sorry WTC7 doesn't resemble at all what a building looks like due to a natural collapse as it's too perfect , buildings collapsing due to random events fall asymmetrically and steel structured buildings never collapse due to fire

But if you can view it as a normal collapse due to random fires and damage , so be it , but I think you're very wrong and so do a growing number of other people

In italics - they said it had a low probability, not very low. Even though it's a low probability, it's a perfectly plausible and believe explanation.

Ok, can you please dismiss every piece of evidence here that states it was a natural collapse.

WTC 7 - A natural collapse

[shen]

Suffered extensive structural damage from falling debris off WTC's, coupled with fire damage that lead to it's natural collapse.

The official investigation concluded that structural damage did NOT play an important role. It was fire that did it all the damage. Quite amazing how fires have never been the cause of steel-framed buildings up until 9/11.

[Zingari]

In italics - they said it had a low probability, not very low. Even though it's a low probability, it's a perfectly plausible and believe explanation.

Ok, can you please dismiss every piece of evidence here that states it was a natural collapse.

WTC 7 - A natural collapse

Sorry but if they conclude that it was a "low probability of occurence " , that really ought to be taken "not very plausible"

i don't have to dismiss any evidence as Architects and Engineers have already done that over and over again .

Please just look at the collapse and think about how you see it happening , not just keep holding onto an hypothesis that in their own words is not likely

I really cannot view that collapse as a result of randomness , whether by fire or damage , doesn't it just look a little too perfect for randomness ?

[marko]

The official investigation concluded that structural damage did NOT play an important role. It was fire that did it all the damage. Quite amazing how fires have never been the cause of steel-framed buildings up until 9/11.

Seems like you've got this all wrapped up then.

Then again, have there been any comparable fires in steel framed buildings that have been blazing for so long?

[marko]

Sorry but if they conclude that it was a "low probability of occurence " , that really ought to be taken "not very plausible"

i don't have to dismiss any evidence as Architects and Engineers have already done that over and over again .

Please just look at the collapse and think about how you see it happening , not just keep holding onto an hypothesis that in their own words is not likely

I really cannot view that collapse as a result of randomness , whether by fire or damage , doesn't it just look a little too perfect for randomness ?

Just because it's a low probability doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.

Similarly, numerous experts have dismissed the conspiracy theories so I don't have to dismiss any of your claims.

[Zingari]

Just because it's a low probability doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.

maybe not , but i'd sooner believe an explanation with a high probability , and that explanation includes explosives , and by the way here are some buildings that managed to stand upright after much bigger fires for much longer periods

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

but as i said before if you choose to believe the official version that's fine , i just like to discuss these things

[marko]

maybe not , but i'd sooner believe an explanation with a high probability , and that explanation includes explosives , and by the way here are some buildings that managed to stand upright after much bigger fires for much longer periods

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

but as i said before if you choose to believe the official version that's fine , i just like to discuss these things

They're different designs altogether. WTC 7 was unique in both its design and circumstances.

Who says they are explanations with "high probability? the very people that dream them up? like minded, paranoid, conspiracy junkies with an agenda against the Government?

Finally, if it was a controlled demolition, then why did falling debris damage surrounding buildings? surely it would have fallen in to its own foundations?

[shen]

Seems like you've got this all wrapped up then.

Then again, have there been any comparable fires in steel framed buildings that have been blazing for so long?

Montreal, Canada 1986

Los Angeles, 1988, First Interstate Bank

One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia, 1991

Parque Central, Caracas, Venezuela 2004

Edificio Madrid, Spain 2005

So yes, you tell me how 'fires' and fires alone initiated a global collapse. Ignoring the WTC 1 & 2, this was the first ever steel-framed high rise to collapse from a fire despite intact fire proofing. All other cases had similar failing sprinkler systems and/or other anomalies. Even the Broadgate fire which was not fire proofed didn't collapse despite fires raging for 4,5 hours with temperatures going as high as 1000 degrees celsius. It did not collapse.

If fires did indeed cause the WTC 7 (and the WTC 1 & 2) to collapse, then it's an absolute freak result which cannot even be recreated.

[marko]

Montreal, Canada 1986

Los Angeles, 1988, First Interstate Bank

One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia, 1991

Parque Central, Caracas, Venezuela 2004

Edificio Madrid, Spain 2005

So 5 buildings; it's hardly a massive sample size to categorically state it's impossible for fire to result in the failure of a steel structure. It's also highly debatable that they're comparable due to circumstances, design and ability of fire services to tackle the blazes.

[marko]

Montreal, Canada 1986

Los Angeles, 1988, First Interstate Bank

One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia, 1991

Parque Central, Caracas, Venezuela 2004

Edificio Madrid, Spain 2005

So yes, you tell me how 'fires' and fires alone initiated a global collapse. Ignoring the WTC 1 & 2, this was the first ever steel-framed high rise to collapse from a fire despite intact fire proofing. All other cases had similar failing sprinkler systems and/or other anomalies. Even the Broadgate fire which was not fire proofed didn't collapse despite fires raging for 4,5 hours with temperatures going as high as 1000 degrees celsius. It did not collapse.

If fires did indeed cause the WTC 7 (and the WTC 1 & 2) to collapse, then it's an absolute freak result which cannot even be recreated.

Enjoy the read

[shen]

So 5 buildings; it's hardly a massive sample size to categorically state it's impossible for fire to result in the failure of a steel structure. It's also highly debatable that they're comparable due to circumstances, design and ability of fire services to tackle the blazes.

You asked for comparable fires, I pointed some out to you. I'm not a high rise fire historian, but fires of that magnitude are not exactly every day occurences. And of course it's bloody highly debatable, why else would we both keep harping on about it? You'll claim that the explanations are fully legit, I'll claim that nothing points towards it being a plausible explanation. I back that up by showing that worse fires have raged other high rises, with worse fire proofing, for longer and not collapsed. Of course, the many high rise engineers and physics scientists that have shown that the conditions of WTC 7 cannot explain its collapse could be utterly wrong. But history and accounts convince me that 'fire' is not the final explanation.

[marko]

You asked for comparable fires, I pointed some out to you. I'm not a high rise fire historian, but fires of that magnitude are not exactly every day occurences. And of course it's bloody highly debatable, why else would we both keep harping on about it? You'll claim that the explanations are fully legit, I'll claim that nothing points towards it being a plausible explanation. I back that up by showing that worse fires have raged other high rises, with worse fire proofing, for longer and not collapsed. Of course, the many high rise engineers and physics scientists that have shown that the conditions of WTC 7 cannot explain its collapse could be utterly wrong. But history and accounts convince me that 'fire' is not the final explanation.

What really gets me, is that how on earth has no-one had an attack of conscience and come clean about the US Government killing its own citizens, lets face it, it'd take a considerable number of people to pull off something so elaborate. Not to mention, how on God's green earth they laid mile after mile of wires needed for a controlled demolition of that size and not one single soul saw them doing this.

[shen]

Enjoy the read

Notice how this fella insists that structural damage caused by falling debris off the Twin towers 'may have weakened the building' prior to collapse. This despite him linking to the NIST report which clearly states that this structural damage was 'not important'. The report explains that the fire-proofing was adequate and transfer elements did not play a significant role either. They literally attribute the collapse to one column buckling as a result of fire-induced floor collapse. The report does not answer any questions and only raises more, but then again it's probably not their fault seing as "[...]the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts that could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting."

[marko]

Notice how this fella insists that structural damage caused by falling debris off the Twin towers 'may have weakened the building' prior to collapse. This despite him linking to the NIST report which clearly states that this structural damage was 'not important'. The report explains that the fire-proofing was adequate and transfer elements did not play a significant role either. They literally attribute the collapse to one column buckling as a result of fire-induced floor collapse. The report does not answer any questions and only raises more, but then again it's probably not their fault seing as "[...]the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts that could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting."

At least they're honest that there make be some inaccuracies, rather than passing off hearsay as gospel.

May I also recommend you have a read of some of the other links, there's some interesting reading.

[shen]

What really gets me, is that how on earth has no-one had an attack of conscience and come clean about the US Government killing its own citizens, lets face it, it'd take a considerable number of people to pull off something so elaborate. Not to mention, how on God's green earth they laid mile after mile of wires needed for a controlled demolition of that size and not one single soul saw them doing this.

See? This is exactly what makes me think you're a debunker for the sake of it being the easy solution giving you a greater peace of mind. You jump to the conclusion that people that would question the events of 9/11 automatically think the 'US Government planned the attacks'. Notice how I deliberately refrain from saying there's a conspiracy (nor do I imply who'd be behind it or what extent it'd have). I have merely pointed out that the official explanations for the collapse of WTC 7 do not add up/are insufficient, and that we'll likely never know as the debris was removed and disintegrated before anyone had a chance to investigate the crime scene. And I think it's perfectly fair to question the decision and even the motives behind it. NOTE: THIS DOES NOT EQUATE TO ME SAYING THE US GOVERNMENT PLANNED THE 9/11 ATTACKS!

[Zingari]

What really gets me, is that how on earth has no-one had an attack of conscience and come clean about the US Government killing its own citizens, lets face it, it'd take a considerable number of people to pull off something so elaborate. Not to mention, how on God's green earth they laid mile after mile of wires needed for a controlled demolition of that size and not one single soul saw them doing this.

I don't really want to get into alternate explanations , and would rather concentrate on my disbelief of the official version , but it's called Compartmentalization

For example the Manhattan Project employed more than 130,000 people but only few know that the final product was an atom bomb .

Someone could have placed a box here , someone else a box there, (maybe these were not wired but remote controlled) and so on without actually knowing the full implication of what they were doing

Oh and George Bush's brother Marvin was in charge of security just prior to 911

But i'm just speculating , my point being that just because the alternative explanations carry a heavy load , then it does not mean we have to believe what seems very implausible . And the collapse of WTC 7 in that manner and the NIST explanation seems very implausible

[The People's Hero]

I'm more concerned about my lack of form with the bat towards the business-end of the season.

[marko]

See? This is exactly what makes me think you're a debunker for the sake of it being the easy solution giving you a greater peace of mind. You jump to the conclusion that people that would question the events of 9/11 automatically think the 'US Government planned the attacks'. Notice how I deliberately refrain from saying there's a conspiracy (nor do I imply who'd be behind it or what extent it'd have). I have merely pointed out that the official explanations for the collapse of WTC 7 do not add up/are insufficient, and that we'll likely never know as the debris was removed and disintegrated before anyone had a chance to investigate the crime scene. And I think it's perfectly fair to question the decision and even the motives behind it. NOTE: THIS DOES NOT EQUATE TO ME SAYING THE US GOVERNMENT PLANNED THE 9/11 ATTACKS!

Well, to my simple mind, those who reject the official investigation (not saying you are) appear to be claiming it was a controlled demolition. Who else could they be pointing the finger at?

Rubbish, debunker for the sake of it being an easy solution. As I stated in reply to your very first post, I have watched numerous videos and read plenty of articles for and against, weighed up the arguments and evidence and come to my own conclusion. Surely that's not difficult to understand?

The phrase - when you hear hooves, it's probably horses, not zebra's - springs to mind.

[Zingari]

I'm more concerned about my lack of form with the bat towards the business-end of the season.

that's no way to talk about the missus , you ain't been married five minutes

[The People's Hero]

Well, to my simple mind, those who reject the official investigation (not saying you are) appear to be claiming it was a controlled demolition. Who else could they be pointing the finger at?

The Turks

National Association of Zoologists

Mick Jagger

Geraint Jones

Nadler

It's either one of those five, a combination of any/all of the above five, or none of the above five.

Of that I'm sure.

[marko]

I don't really want to get into alternate explanations , and would rather concentrate on my disbelief of the official version , but it's called Compartmentalization

For example the Manhattan Project employed more than 130,000 people but only few know that the final product was an atom bomb .

Someone could have placed a box here , someone else a box there, (maybe these were not wired but remote controlled) and so on without actually knowing the full implication of what they were doing

Oh and George Bush's brother Marvin was in charge of security just prior to 911

But i'm just speculating , my point being that just because the alternative explanations carry a heavy load , then it does not mean we have to believe what seems very implausible . And the collapse of WTC 7 in that manner and the NIST explanation seems very implausible

Probably because it's nigh on impossible to come up with a remotely plausible theory as to how a building could be wired without a single bystander becoming suspicious.

[marko]

The Turks

National Association of Zoologists

Mick Jagger

Geraint Jones

Nadler

It's either one of those five, a combination of any/all of the above five, or none of the above five.

Of that I'm sure.

You forgot the ref on Saturday - I thought everything was his fault

[Zingari]

Probably because it's nigh on impossible to come up with a remotely plausible theory as to how a building could be wired without a single bystander becoming suspicious.

if you'd have carried on reading the explanation regarding "compartmentalisation" is there

[marko]

if you'd have carried on reading the explanation regarding "compartmentalisation" is there

So you're shooting yourself in the foot then