Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[MooseBreath]

what I cannot understand if it was a controlled explosion is how they knew where to place the explosives and what damage there would be before the collapse to have the desired affect. Surely they would prefer to not make it look like a controlled explosion so as not raise doubts and cause people to think it was a conspiracy.

perhaps my thinking is too simple.

That's a good point. They were damn lucky those other towers came down and inflicted enough damage on WTC7 for a collapse caused by damage to be plausible. Imagine that hadn't have happened and WTC7 suddenly just came down for no apparent reason at all. For a conspiracy which apparently went right to the top, cost billions, and involved thousands of highly respected professional people, it was set up relying on an absolutely incredible amount of good fortune.

[fleckneymike]

what I cannot understand if it was a controlled explosion is how  they knew where to place the explosives and what damage there would be before the collapse to have the desired affect. Surely they would prefer to not make it look like a controlled explosion so as not raise doubts and cause people to think it was a conspiracy.

perhaps my thinking is too simple.

 

Please don't bring logic into this.

[Zingari]

I like you Zingari but come on tell me you see the irony in this comment?

In a way i suppose you can say that,  and i do appreciate i may seem dogmatic, but i'm  not really , because for five years after 9 11 I believed every word of the official story . 

It was only after I heard of building 7  and watched with a fresh eye at the almost almost seamless and smooth decent of  totally upright massive 47 storey steel framed  building   to become a  totally demolished neat pile of rubble in its own footprint  in 10 seconds that set me thinking all was not as it appeared and that I had reason to doubt .

Really  really watch the collapse and try to appreciate its Swiss watch like movement  ,if we can disassociate it from the day,  it can almost be described as "beautiful" in its elegant  smooth symmetrical and total descent. This is not something achievable by random debris and fires , this is skillful engineering art  . 

 

controlled demolition without a doubt  :xmassmile:

 

edit;

here is a compilation video of the collapse from 23 cameras  , i'd like it if people would watch it all , but if not just ff to 2mins 50 and watch the collapse and listen to how news reporter dan rather describes it. 

[MooseBreath]

So you're not an expert, haven't even read the official explanation, can't explain how it even fits into a conspiracy, but you know it's a controlled demolition because you can tell by watching some grainy video footage?

Flawless.

[purpleronnie]

 

In a way i suppose you can say that,  and i do appreciate i may seem dogmatic, but i'm  not really , because for five years after 9 11 I believed every word of the official story . 

It was only after I heard of building 7  and watched with a fresh eye at the almost almost seamless and smooth decent of  totally upright massive 47 storey steel framed  building   to become a  totally demolished neat pile of rubble in its own footprint  in 10 seconds that set me thinking all was not as it appeared and that I had reason to doubt .

Really  really watch the collapse and try to appreciate its Swiss watch like movement  ,if we can disassociate it from the day,  it can almost be described as "beautiful" in its elegant  smooth symmetrical and total descent. This is not something achievable by random debris and fires , this is skillful engineering art  . 

 

controlled demolition without a doubt  :xmassmile:

 

edit;

here is a compilation video of the collapse from 23 cameras  , i'd like it if people would watch it all , but if not just ff to 2mins 50 and watch the collapse and listen to how news reporter dan rather describes it. 

 

Hasn't changed my mind bit not sure why it would.

 

I know you've probably answerd this already Zing but when do you think this was rigged up for a controlled demolition in one of the busiest places in America?

[Zingari]

Hasn't changed my mind bit not sure why it would.

 

I know you've probably answerd this already Zing but when do you think this was rigged up for a controlled demolition in one of the busiest places in America?

***speculation only***

  It was rigged in the weeks prior to 911 in a compartmentalized ( ala Manhattan project)fashion by a team of foreign experts who had been given access by George Bush's brother Marvin who was in control of wtc security up until 911  .

***speculation over ***

 

But it's really not that important what i personally believe about how or why  it was achieved , i just think there is enough evidence to suggest it was.

If expert demolition workers such as Danny Jowenko recognise it as such , i really think we should consider the possibility and if it is indeed the work of a demolition team we should  try to work out the  how who and why afterwards.  Isn't this the way all crimes are treated ?

[fleckneymike]

***speculation only***

  It was rigged in the weeks prior to 911 in a compartmentalized ( ala Manhattan project)fashion by a team of foreign experts who had been given access by George Bush's brother Marvin who was in control of wtc security up until 911  .

***speculation over ***

 

But it's really not that important what i personally believe about how or why  it was achieved , i just think there is enough evidence to suggest it was.

If expert demolition workers such as Danny Jowenko recognise it as such , i really think we should consider the possibility and if it is indeed the work of a demolition team we should  try to work out the  how who and why afterwards.  Isn't this the way all crimes are treated ?

 

A bit misleading to use 'such as'. Why not simply state If expert demolition work Danny Jowenko?

 

The 'theory' of controlled demolition has been considered and been proven to be completely without merit.

[purpleronnie]

***speculation only***

  It was rigged in the weeks prior to 911 in a compartmentalized ( ala Manhattan project)fashion by a team of foreign experts who had been given access by George Bush's brother Marvin who was in control of wtc security up until 911  .

***speculation over ***

 

But it's really not that important what i personally believe about how or why  it was achieved , i just think there is enough evidence to suggest it was.

If expert demolition workers such as Danny Jowenko recognise it as such , i really think we should consider the possibility and if it is indeed the work of a demolition team we should  try to work out the  how who and why afterwards.  Isn't this the way all crimes are treated ?

But zing he simply speculates about how it 'was' done, as if he actually knows.  Is that the same video where those interviewing him didn't even tell him about the extensive fires in the towers or that those were unfought for hours? Jowenko's fallacies have been addressed many times by the engineering community.

 

p.s. For every person who might say it was CD there are experts who state otherwise so not sure why you would believe Mr Jowenko's over others.

[Zingari]

But zing he simply speculates about how it 'was' done, as if he actually knows.  Is that the same video where those interviewing him didn't even tell him about the extensive fires in the towers or that those were unfought for hours?

He's a demolition expert and he's recognising it as a "controlled demolition"with an "unprejudiced eye" , that's the whole point .That's why he wasn't told it happened on the same day,  this ensures  he gave an honest opinion . 

Do you really believe experts don't recognise what they set out to achieve every day?

 

This is what we all need to do,  ie try to look at the collapse with an unprejudiced eye,   because the moment we attach other problems associated with 911 we instinctively make excuses about why it can't be a controlled demolition and opt for other explanations , (even accepting explanations of events that have never happened before or since)

 

edit ;

regarding other experts , let them prove it's possible and actually demolish a steel framed building   with fire in 8 hours  , it should be easy enough with all the nist studies explaining how it works , 

[Zingari]

He's a demolition expert and he's recognising it as a "controlled demolition"with an "unprejudiced eye" , that's the whole point .That's why he wasn't told it happened on the same day,  this ensures  he gave an honest opinion . 

Do you really believe experts don't recognise what they set out to achieve every day?

 

This is what we all need to do,  ie try to look at the collapse with an unprejudiced eye,   because the moment we attach other problems associated with 911 we instinctively make excuses about why it can't be a controlled demolition and opt for other explanations , (even accepting explanations of events that have never happened before or since)

 

edit ;

regarding other experts , let them prove it's possible and actually demolish a steel framed building   with fire in 8 hours  , it should be easy enough with all the nist studies explaining how it works , 

[fleckneymike]

He's a demolition expert and he's recognising it as a "controlled demolition"with an "unprejudiced eye" , that's the whole point .That's why he wasn't told it happened on the same day,  this ensures  he gave an honest opinion . 

Do you really believe experts don't recognise what they set out to achieve every day?

 

This is what we all need to do,  ie try to look at the collapse with an unprejudiced eye,   because the moment we attach other problems associated with 911 we instinctively make excuses about why it can't be a controlled demolition and opt for other explanations , (even accepting explanations of events that have never happened before or since)

 

edit ;

regarding other experts , let them prove it's possible and actually demolish a steel framed building   with fire in 8 hours  , it should be easy enough with all the nist studies explaining how it works , 

 

No he recognising it without all the facts.

[Rincewind]

What did the collapse look like from the other sides of the building?

[shen]

A bit misleading to use 'such as'. Why not simply state If expert demolition work Danny Jowenko?

 

The 'theory' of controlled demolition has been considered and been proven to be completely without merit.

 

No, not completely. In fact, the question that doesn't seem plausible to most, and this includes the people behind the NIST report, is how would they go about planting these explosives/thermite/thermate without 'anyone noticing'. They 'disprove' the theory on the basis of audio from the recorded tapes of the WTC 7 collapse and from inconsistent witness reports, while claiming it to be "unlikely" that the needed amount of thermite could have been planted there.

 

"It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions." (FAQ pt. 14)

 

They DIDN'T test it in their "state-of-the-art" model. In fact, they only tested two scenarios with that model: One that included damage from the debris from WTC 1, and one that didn't. Both scenarios showed that the building COULD have globally collapsed due to uncontrolled fires in extraordinary circumstances. In between the lines, they're admitting that they can't be sure how it collapsed, because they lacked evidence (and probably because they were under pressure to present an answer that would meet expectations).

 

I'll be the first to say that the fire-collapse theory could well be the most probable on the basis of evidence collected. But to claim that the theory of controlled demolition has been PROVEN to be completely without merit is just daft.

[Zingari]

To anyone who believes the official explanation.

Do you think there are demolition experts anywhere in the world now who are considering in the light of the nist report and working on the theories to bring down steel framed buildings in the future using only fire ?

If not. why not ? Surely if fire can make steel buildings collapse in 8 hours they would be feverishly studying how this can be used in future .This would be of immense importance to them.The saving of money , man power , riggers  RDX etc would be enormous .

 

the fact is it can't be one 

[fleckneymike]

No, not completely. In fact, the question that doesn't seem plausible to most, and this includes the people behind the NIST report, is how would they go about planting these explosives/thermite/thermate without 'anyone noticing'. They 'disprove' the theory on the basis of audio from the recorded tapes of the WTC 7 collapse and from inconsistent witness reports, while claiming it to be "unlikely" that the needed amount of thermite could have been planted there.

 

"It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions." (FAQ pt. 14)

 

They DIDN'T test it in their "state-of-the-art" model. In fact, they only tested two scenarios with that model: One that included damage from the debris from WTC 1, and one that didn't. Both scenarios showed that the building COULD have globally collapsed due to uncontrolled fires in extraordinary circumstances. In between the lines, they're admitting that they can't be sure how it collapsed, because they lacked evidence (and probably because they were under pressure to present an answer that would meet expectations).

 

I'll be the first to say that the fire-collapse theory could well be the most probable on the basis of evidence collected. But to claim that the theory of controlled demolition has been PROVEN to be completely without merit is just daft.

 

The 100lbs figure is per column.

 

I would also say the very fact that no one currently uses thermite to demolish buildings means the likelihood of this scenario is close to zero.

[fleckneymike]

To anyone who believes the official explanation.

Do you think there are demolition experts anywhere in the world now who are considering in the light of the nist report and working on the theories to bring down steel framed buildings in the future using only fire ?

If not. why not ? Surely if fire can make steel buildings collapse in 8 hours they would be feverishly studying how this can be used in future .This would be of immense importance to them.The saving of money , man power , riggers  RDX etc would be enormous .

 

the fact is it can't be one 

 

Isn't the 'fact' that it hadn't happened before, that it took a set of extraordinary circumstances and cannot guarantee a controlled demolition the reason they haven't tried to emulate it?

[MooseBreath]

If you bothered to read the NIST report zing, you would have answers to all your questions.

Question to the controlled demolition crew - how did they ensure the twin towers would fall as they did, throwing fire onto WTC 7, without which a covered up controlled demolition would have been impossible?

[fleckneymike]

If you bothered to read the NIST report zing, you would have answers to all your questions.

Question to the controlled demolition crew - how did they ensure the twin towers would fall as they did, throwing fire onto WTC 7, without which a covered up controlled demolition would have been impossible?

 

Can we all please stop employing logic.

[purpleronnie]

It wasn't just fire though was it zing?

 

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

 

[Rincewind]

We agree on something Moose.

[anotherharboroughfox]

I'm not massively into all this but isn't WTC7 the building the BBC reported collapsed 23 minutes prior to it coming down?

[Zingari]

I'm not massively into all this but isn't WTC7 the building the BBC reported collapsed 23 minutes prior to it coming down?

Yes they did , BBC reporter Jane Standley reported the collapse at least 20 mins before it happened and even though no steel building had ever collapsed before 9 11  , we have to forget all that and accept that not only are fires capable of bringing down steel framed buildings , we can also predict when  it's  going to happen .

 

Nothing unusual about that though because the BBC had Mystic Meg back then  :xmasbiggrin:

[fleckneymike]

I'm not massively into all this but isn't WTC7 the building the BBC reported collapsed 23 minutes prior to it coming down?

 

Yes they did. The imminent collapse of the building was being reported by most major news outlets as that is what they were being told by the first responders who'd seen the building and left it as they knew it was doomed.

 

If you're a conspiracy believer then it is evidence of an even bigger cover up where for some reason the evil masterminds of this plot nearly ruin their incredibly clever plot by announcing their own controlled demolition prior to their controlled demolition.

 

So we have two choices

 

a) evil genius nearly **** up their whole plan by feeding the BBC information 23 minutes too soon rather than just waiting for the building to collapse via their fiendishly clever controlled demolition (thus negating the need to actually leak news in the first place)

 

or

 

b) on a day of unparalleled complexity and uncertainty a reporter got a fact wrong.

 

 

hmmm, tricky.

[Zingari]

So you believe that we have  a set of circumstances that are  impossible to recreate .?

 

 But given   the same set of circumstances  on a day of outright confusion , it can be predicted that something that's never happened before,(  ie   the total collapse of a steel building) 20 minutes at least in the future has happened or is about to happen ?

[fleckneymike]

 

So you believe that we have  a set of circumstances that are  impossible to recreate .?

 

 But given   the same set of circumstances  on a day of outright confusion , it can be predicted that something that's never happened before,(  ie   the total collapse of a steel building) 20 minutes at least in the future has happened or is about to happen ?

 

 

Now you're being deliberately dishonest. They didn't say 'everyone out, this'll collapse in 20 minutes' they simply decided the building was unsafe and due to the lack of available water decided to pull out firefighters.