Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Zingari]

So you're shooting yourself in the foot then

it wouldn't be the first time

glad we can all have a civil discussion anyway marko

edit;

i'm still going away thinking it was a controlled demolition though

[marko]

it wouldn't be the first time

glad we can all have a civil discussion anyway marko

edit;

i'm still going away thinking it was a controlled demolition though

I know you believe the official report really - you just love the debate

[Rincewind]

Maybe this is what happened.

Scene: The president of the USA is in his Oval rooom. He is flicking through the pages of an adult magazine. His intecom buzzes. He sits up startled and presses a button.

President: Yes what is it?

Voice on other end: 'Mr President Sir, It's the head of the CIA, he would like a word with you.'

President: 'OK kiddo send him in' Gathers magazine and puts it into a top drawer of his desk.

The door opens and a man enters.

President: Ah! Mr Zing, what crazy idea have you for me today?'

Mr Zing: Mr President this is not a crazy idea, it is something that will have people singing your praises long after you have gone.

President straigtens up in his chair: 'Please continue Mr Zing.'

Mr Zing: 'Well Mr President my plan is to demolish the Trade Centre by crashing a couple of planes into it then blaming it on Iraq.'

President. 'Ummm very good but wouldn't there be casualties?

Mr Zing: 'Yes very likely into the thousands but it's all for the good of democracy and the USA. Plus it will give you a reason to invade Iraq then put in a government more to the western idealogy.'

Presiden6t: 'Well, yes that is true, but what about the aftermath, you know what these conspiricy freaks are like?

Mr Zing.: Don't worry about that Mr President, those involve will be hand picked and true Americans. Nothing can go wrong.

President: Very well Mr Zing take what money you need from the welfare fund and set it up and Mr Zing...

Mr Zing: Yes Mr President?

President: 'We never had this conversation.'

Mr Zing: 'Of course not Mr President.' Leaves room.

President opens drawer.

[GLC]

I was watching videos of this yesterday, it is very strange, but we can all agree it wasn't winged aliens

[Zingari]

Maybe this is what happened.

Scene: The president of the USA is in his Oval rooom. He is flicking through the pages of an adult magazine. His intecom buzzes. He sits up startled and presses a button.

President: Yes what is it?

Voice on other end: 'Mr President Sir, It's the head of the CIA, he would like a word with you.'

President: 'OK kiddo send him in' Gathers magazine and puts it into a top drawer of his desk.

The door opens and a man enters.

President: Ah! Mr Zing, what crazy idea have you for me today?'

Mr Zing: Mr President this is not a crazy idea, it is something that will have people singing your praises long after you have gone.

President straigtens up in his chair: 'Please continue Mr Zing.'

Mr Zing: 'Well Mr President my plan is to demolish the Trade Centre by crashing a couple of planes into it then blaming it on Iraq.'

President. 'Ummm very good but wouldn't there be casualties?

Mr Zing: 'Yes very likely into the thousands but it's all for the good of democracy and the USA. Plus it will give you a reason to invade Iraq then put in a government more to the western idealogy.'

Presiden6t: 'Well, yes that is true, but what about the aftermath, you know what these conspiricy freaks are like?

Mr Zing.: Don't worry about that Mr President, those involve will be hand picked and true Americans. Nothing can go wrong.

President: Very well Mr Zing take what money you need from the welfare fund and set it up and Mr Zing...

Mr Zing: Yes Mr President?

President: 'We never had this conversation.'

Mr Zing: 'Of course not Mr President.' Leaves room.

President opens drawer.

i was around in the early 60's too and the confab was very similar in content

President: Yes what is it?

Voice on other end: 'Mr President Sir, It's the head of the joint chiefs of staff, he would like a word with you.'

President: 'OK kiddo send him in' Gathers magazine and puts it into a top drawer of his desk.

The door opens and a man enters.

President: Ah! Mr Zing, what crazy idea have you for me today?'

Mr Zing: Mr President this is not a crazy idea, it is something that will have people singing your praises long after you have gone.

President straigtens up in his chair: 'Please continue Mr Zing.'

it changes slightly here

Mr Zing: 'Well Mr President my plan is to get the US involved fully in the Vietnam war , it seems that killing JFK wasn't enough to get congress on board .

President. 'Ummm very good but wouldn't there be casualties?

Mr Zing: 'Yes very likely into the thousands but it's all for the good of democracy and the USA. Plus it will give you a reason to invade Vietnam because we intend to stage manage a battle in the Gulf of Tonkin , we attack our own warship the USS Maddox and blame it on the North Vietnamese

President: 'what about the aftermath, you know what these conspiricy freaks are like?

Mr Zing.: Don't worry about that Mr President, those involved will be hand picked and true Americans. Nothing can go wrong.and this is 1965 , they've already swallowed all the JFK bullshit so this should be a piece of cake . You know how easy the people are fooled by the big lie , did you learn nothing from the Reichstag fire ?

President: Very well Mr Zing take what money you need from the welfare fund and set it up and Mr Zing...

Mr Zing: Yes Mr President?

President: 'We never had this conversation.'

Mr Zing: 'Of course not Mr President.' Leaves room.

President opens drawer.

[Jackirius]

I cant see 10 or so members from a championship football team forum doing much about it.

[marko]

I cant see 10 or so members from a championship football team forum doing much about it.

Similarly, I can't see 50 members from a championship football team forum discussing what Saturday's team should be doing anything to change Sven's mind - but it's still a topic worth debating.

[shen]

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.

It's not difficult to understand, no. However, it's only natural that I want to verify where you're coming from. Anyone can say they've done so and so, it's especially easy on a forum like this. My reaction had to do with the way you jumped to the conclusion that this was about some arguing it's a grand conspiracy involving the US government. For every conspiracy theorist, there's a just as deluded debunker.

As for the WTC 7 incident, I'm no expert so I don't want to randomly speculate about what happened there. I can just read the report, hear what experts say and make my mind up about it. To me the explanation leaves many questions unanswered. What I do want to blame officials for is removing and destroying pieces of evidence that could potentially save lives in the future, were similar incidents to happen elsewhere. I don't know who is ultimately responsible for these actions, but they carry a lot of the blame for the unsatisfactory investigations post-attack.

[marko]

It's not difficult to understand, no. However, it's only natural that I want to verify where you're coming from. Anyone can say they've done so and so, it's especially easy on a forum like this. My reaction had to do with the way you jumped to the conclusion that this was about some arguing it's a grand conspiracy involving the US government. For every conspiracy theorist, there's a just as deluded debunker.

As for the WTC 7 incident, I'm no expert so I don't want to randomly speculate about what happened there. I can just read the report, hear what experts say and make my mind up about it. To me the explanation leaves many questions unanswered. What I do want to blame officials for is removing and destroying pieces of evidence that could potentially save lives in the future, were similar incidents to happen elsewhere. I don't know who is ultimately responsible for these actions, but they carry a lot of the blame for the unsatisfactory investigations post-attack.

Well, i've had this very discussion with Zingari before so I knew his stance on WTC 7 being an inside job. So i've not jumped to any conclusions in that respect.

Perhaps there were mitigating circumstances as to why the WTC debris was cleared so quickly, e.g. bringing some normality back to NYC. Like you, i'm no expert, but on the balance of the evidence i've seen, my own personal conclusion is that the unique design, coupled with all the surrounding circumstances led to the natural collapse of WTC 7. I can't put it any clearer than that for you.

[Zingari]

Well, i've had this very discussion with Zingari before so I knew his stance on WTC 7 being an inside job. So i've not jumped to any conclusions in that respect.

Perhaps there were mitigating circumstances as to why the WTC debris was cleared so quickly, e.g. bringing some normality back to NYC. Like you, i'm no expert, but on the balance of the evidence i've seen, my own personal conclusion is that the unique design, coupled with all the surrounding circumstances led to the natural collapse of WTC 7. I can't put it any clearer than that for you.

I don’t think that I’ve ever said that I definitely believe that 911 was an inside job , but of course you are right that if I don’t believe the official explanation then it must in the end lead one to the conclusion that this is the case .

That is why in this thread I really wanted to stay on the single matter of the physical collapse of WTC7 and how it collapsed in that way without going off into too many alternative theories about who was really behind it etc etc , but I admit it’s difficult because most peoples argument about the collapse tends to veer off into such questions as

“ how could the gov do it without anyone knowing”

“ why would the gov kill their own people” .

Basically it seems that no one can question the official line without getting dragged into offering alternatives.

I’ll just say again that the collapse does not look like a normal building falling down to me or to many other well respected architects , engineers and demolition experts who claim it has all the hallmarks of controlled demolition

If you are satisfied with the explanation that it was in some way a unique design that made it susceptible to virtual freefall collapse and really feel you can watch WTC7 fall and not be in the slightest suspicious , that’s fine , but equally there will remain many who will continue to disbelieve the official version , and I’m one of them

Please believe me though when I say I really value your input (and that goes for Shen too) because Im really not definite about it and really want to be proven wrong because if there were explosives used in the demolition the world really is a scary place

[marko]

I don’t think that I’ve ever said that I definitely believe that 911 was an inside job , but of course you are right that if I don’t believe the official explanation then it must in the end lead one to the conclusion that this is the case .

That is why in this thread I really wanted to stay on the single matter of the physical collapse of WTC7 and how it collapsed in that way without going off into too many alternative theories about who was really behind it etc etc , but I admit it’s difficult because most peoples argument about the collapse tends to veer off into such questions as

“ how could the gov do it without anyone knowing”

“ why would the gov kill their own people” .

Basically it seems that no one can question the official line without getting dragged into offering alternatives.

I’ll just say again that the collapse does not look like a normal building falling down to me or to many other well respected architects , engineers and demolition experts who claim it has all the hallmarks of controlled demolition

If you are satisfied with the explanation that it was in some way a unique design that made it susceptible to virtual freefall collapse and really feel you can watch WTC7 fall and not be in the slightest suspicious , that’s fine , but equally there will remain many who will continue to disbelieve the official version , and I’m one of them

Please believe me though when I say I really value your input (and that goes for Shen too) because Im really not definite about it and really want to be proven wrong because if there were explosives used in the demolition the world really is a scary place

I just remember discussing this in the 'Bin Laden is dead' thread and it seemed as though you aired on the side of it being the US Government.

Just a quick one on the video - another point where I have a problem is that it's a 2D perspective shot from a reasonably long distance. Therefore, it's nearly impossible to conclude it falls straight down. A closer video may highlight WTC 7 doesn't fall straight down and in fact does fall down to one side - i've seen pictures that certainly suggest it wasn't a perfectly symmetrical fall, as debris damages buildings a reasonable distance from its own footprint and some of the falling debris even landed on roofs on the opposite side of the street. Which, to my mind, indicates it wasn't a perfectly vertical fall.

As you say, no matter what evidence or explanation is put forward by either side, there is always going to be super critical analysis of every little detail.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

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

But don't all of these theories fight each other as well?

My understanding of your video is that molten metal was discovered before the explosions - so if that is the case, the area was pretty hot, the structure was pretty damaged. How did they get the explosives in place and in the right area to complete a controlled pull?

If the building was fitted up before and it took months, how did they get enough c4 in the right areas to cause both the collapse and the molten metal - that doesn't normally happen in a controlled explosion does it?

To say an office fire could not get to the temperature to melt steel is rather dismissive, the same accusation they're fielding towards the official report?

The building shape and structure is interesting, it looks like it could fall in on each other like a house of cards does it not (in my non expert opinion). It's a pretty built up area is manhattan - maybe the building collapse pattern was part of the design considering that if it had toppled one way or the other a lot of other buildings were in trouble.

Maybe they did do a controlled pull to avoid further issues in the surrounding area?- but would the government serious want to admit that considering the amount of people that would no doubt have been trapped inside still?

And finally - conspiracy theories are now a big business in their own right, they make these experts money through book sales etc and provide celebrity. That makes me struggle to take in the points without a touch of scepticism, but on the same page, I also take in the governments view the same way.

I'm yet to be convinced completely, one way or the other, but I wasn't impressed by the video. Rather than jump from anomaly to anomaly, I'd prefer a centring on a belief on an alternative theory (one or two) plus evidence and testing to back up that

theory.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

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.

Got any hotter than that?

[shen]

Got any hotter than that?

I'm not sure what your point is. The temperatures at Broadgate are approx twice those measured/estimated at WTC 7.

[Rincewind]

perhaps the WTC wasn't built as well as it was thought. Damm cowboy bulders skimping on materials.

[Zingari]

Yes quite so, perhaps perhaps perhaps

If we were talking about one of Barrett homes this may be a credible point, but I doubt that even their most rootin tootin cowboy builders could manage to build a house that could collapse symmetrically at virtual freefall.

Do you really believe that the wtc buildings could possibly have been built using slap dash methods when they were being presented to the world as the epitome of American civil engineering?

I’m quite prepared to accept that there may have been a dodgy weld here or a loose rivet there, but surely this makes a symmetrical fall even less likely.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I'm not sure what your point is. The temperatures at Broadgate are approx twice those measured/estimated at WTC 7.

My point being the melting point of steel is thought to be higher than 1000 degrees, so if the buildings you have quoted only got to that temperature they were not hot enough to melt steel (and thus are not comparable)?

[shen]

Yes quite so, perhaps perhaps perhaps

If we were talking about one of Barrett homes this may be a credible point, but I doubt that even their most rootin tootin cowboy builders could manage to build a house that could collapse symmetrically at virtual freefall.

Do you really believe that the wtc buildings could possibly have been built using slap dash methods when they were being presented to the world as the epitome of American civil engineering?

I’m quite prepared to accept that there may have been a dodgy weld here or a loose rivet there, but surely this makes a symmetrical fall even less likely.

The symmetrical fall is a contentious one as marko has quite rightly IMO pointed out. However, that the whole building collapses as a result of one column buckling, despite the claims that the structure was not specifically designed to withstand the specific sequence of events described, seems very improbable considering the likeness of the structure with the other high rise fire cases.

My point being the melting point of steel is thought to be higher than 1000 degrees, so if the buildings you have quoted only got to that temperature they were not hot enough to melt steel (and thus are not comparable)?

Comparable to what? Where did I mention molten steel? The whole point of controversy around WTC 7 as I understand it, is that the collapse happened at temperatures much LOWER than the point where steel-structures would weaken significantly. To emphasize the extraordinary circumstances I highlighted buildings that withstood even more fierce fires yet did not collapse, one of which even experienced temperatures substantially ABOVE the critical point (which is generally considered to be around 600 degrees) and STILL did not collapse.

[Zingari]

The symmetrical fall is a contentious one as marko has quite rightly IMO pointed out. However, that the whole building collapses as a result of one column buckling, despite the claims that the structure was not specifically designed to withstand the specific sequence of events described, seems very improbable considering the likeness of the structure with the other high rise fire cases.

Comparable to what? Where did I mention molten steel? The whole point of controversy around WTC 7 as I understand it, is that the collapse happened at temperatures much LOWER than the point where steel-structures would weaken significantly. To emphasize the extraordinary circumstances I highlighted buildings that withstood even more fierce fires yet did not collapse, one of which even experienced temperatures substantially ABOVE the critical point (which is generally considered to be around 600 degrees) and STILL did not collapse.

cheers Shen

I truly believe that the building collapse is symmetrical (or as symmetrical as any controlled demolition can possibly be), and I truly believe that those who deny it’s symmetrical and freefall nature are only doing so because of all the consequences that come with it. Because to believe in controlled demolition obviously carries an extra heavy load and people are too willing to grasp at any technical sounding explanation that tells them all is well .Even if the hypothesis is given to them is saying that it has little chance of occurrence.

How blatant do NIST need to be in telling us it’s is a crock of shite?

I don’t think the symmetry would be contentious in any other circumstances .

If this was film footage of another building in another city on any other day, I truly believe that most people would laugh in the face of anyone who told them that the small pockets of fires that are plainly visible had caused the collapse .( NIST Explanation , not mine )

If I really believed that fires as small as this could cause such destruction and collapse so easily I honestly would not set foot in one again.

If this is shown to anyone alongside any other film footage of controlled demolition it looks remarkably similar and unlike any building collapse that has not been brought down by explosives.

Anyway here’s a good short clip from a film from Italian tv and I’m never quite sure why this sort of stuff never seems to get on TV in the UK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE2vP4h09LE&feature=related

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Comparable to what? Where did I mention molten steel? The whole point of controversy around WTC 7 as I understand it, is that the collapse happened at temperatures much LOWER than the point where steel-structures would weaken significantly. To emphasize the extraordinary circumstances I highlighted buildings that withstood even more fierce fires yet did not collapse, one of which even experienced temperatures substantially ABOVE the critical point (which is generally considered to be around 600 degrees) and STILL did not collapse.

The film mentioned deposits of / fire crews seeing Molten steel did it not, suggesting the area was pretty hot, hot enough to melt steel?

[Charl91]

What annoys me is anyone who questions an official version of events is immediately labelled a "conspiracy theorist" or a nutter. The only nutters are the people who blindly follow the government without thinking for themselves. There are plenty of examples of false flag operations in History that either happened or were planned; events used to justify the invasion of another country. One of them even helped start World War 2. Another was planned to justify an invasion of Cuba. I'm sure the people at the time also thought "the government would never lie to us".

Without an event like 9/11, an invasion of a country like Iraq probably wouldn't be possible. I'm not saying I believe the alternate version of events, I don't possibly know enough myself to comment either way. I'm just that just because the Government says that something is true, it doesn't make it so. They know that even if they did lie to us, we most likely wouldn't find out in our life-time anyhow.

[Narborough_fox]

On a side note. Just been to the new WTC. Beggers belief how tall the main building is and it's still got another 30 or so floors to go.

[shen]

The film mentioned deposits of / fire crews seeing Molten steel did it not, suggesting the area was pretty hot, hot enough to melt steel?

I didn't post or make the video. And I can't really verify what they're saying about 'proof of molten steel'. The official report says temperatures were below the critical thermal expansion level and that there was no evidence of any explosion having occurred. Suppose what they point out in that video is true, that leaves the following options: The official report lied about the temperatures (doesn't make much sense); the official report deliberately omitted/were denied information that would assume an explosion; the experts behind the official report have another non-blast explanation for the composition of the debris; or that what the experts in the video are saying is unsubstantiated. We'll likely never know the answer as the debris was removed and destroyed though.

What annoys me is anyone who questions an official version of events is immediately labelled a "conspiracy theorist" or a nutter.

Amen. It's naïve to believe that there wouldn't be a non-public agenda behind official reports and investigations. On the topic of Afghanistan and Iraq, does anyone remember the WMD proof debacle?

[Zingari]

The film mentioned deposits of / fire crews seeing Molten steel did it not, suggesting the area was pretty hot, hot enough to melt steel?

Yes that's the whole point of it , no normal fire can possibly produce molten steel .Thermate and RDX can and do .( if the firemen are lying they must be in on any wild conspiracy too, )

Molten steel in a collapsed building = controlled demolition =exlosive such as thermate or RDX explosive having have been used.

It's quite obvious that WTC7 by any reckoning had fires that you seriously have to doubt would even buckle steel , but there was "molten steel" , which obviously requires a much greater temperature and that means some sort of explosives such as thermate or RDX must have been used .

[shen]

I truly believe that most people would laugh in the face of anyone who told them that the small pockets of fires that are plainly visible had caused the collapse.( NIST Explanation , not mine )

Anyway here’s a good short clip from a film from Italian tv and I’m never quite sure why this sort of stuff never seems to get on TV in the UK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE2vP4h09LE&feature=related

NIST showed (through simulation admittedly) that fire-induced disproportionate collapse is possible if not probable. Based on the info they had, that was their best guess, which I don't feel I need to blame them for.

Re: the video, I don't pay much attention to the CNN and BBC reports. NIST reports the firemen and officials there to have been anxious about WTC 7 coming down, having just witnessed the Twin Towers collapsing. Likewise with the whole 'brought down' account that the lady recounts. However, if the big blast sounds are genuine from those videos and can be traced to come from WTC 7 then I suppose there could be something about it. Would serial collapsing floors not make a big bang noise though as well?