Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[purpleronnie]

Find it hard to believe after the biggest ever terrorist attacks, the US government would get together and plan a controlled demolition of a building.

People really are strange.

[Zingari]

There were also large stores of diesel, if i'm not mistaken.

go to the bottom of page 51 of the summary of the nist report that shen posted

[shen]

There were also large stores of diesel, if i'm not mistaken.

Yes and they were insignificant to the fires that caused the collapse according to NIST. I refer you to page 30 (3 paragraphs) in the report and again to page 48 which I'll quote here for convenience sake:

"Diesel fuels did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The wort-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e. Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed."

I suggest you glance over it too, marko

[Zingari]

Find it hard to believe after the biggest ever terrorist attacks, the US government would get together and plan a controlled demolition of a building.

People really are strange.

Quite so

It's almost as ridiculous as those idiots that still believe the US government would stage manage an attack on one of it's own warships ,( such as the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin ) as a pretext to get US full involvement in the Vietnam war

Totally unbelievable !!

Except of course for the fact that it just happens to be true

[marko]

go to the bottom of page 51 of the summary of the nist report that shen posted

Apparently i'm mistaken

Although I would love to see such a detailed report by those who insist it was a controlled demolition, on exactly how they did it.

[Zingari]

Apparently i'm mistaken

Although I would love to see such a detailed report by those who insist it was a controlled demolition, on exactly how they did it.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

sherlock holmes

[shen]

Find it hard to believe after the biggest ever terrorist attacks, the US government would get together and plan a controlled demolition of a building.

People really are strange.

I'm questioning the recounting of events of 9/11. I'm not questioning whether 9/11 happened or indeed that the US were subjected to terrorist attacks. I've deliberately refrained from accusing anyone of being behind the attacks. It's plausible that Al-Qaeda or a like terrorist organization did plan and execute the attacks. Either way, if insiders are partly involved I think it is only possible to have been a handful of people that were acting extremely covertly and on their personal behalf. There is no grand conspiracy involving a whole government or even hundreds of people. Like all others I find that impossible. But that a few cynical and cold-hearted bastards could've somehow been involved, I do not find as implausible.

[marko]

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

sherlock holmes

What, like fire made WTC 7 collapse

[shen]

Apparently i'm mistaken

Although I would love to see such a detailed report by those who insist it was a controlled demolition, on exactly how they did it.

The NIST also briefly discuss the possibility of explosives and say they've modeled six different explosive setup patterns that could've caused critical damage to the columns, taking into account the setup time of explosives etc.

Quote (p.26): "Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario . This scenario involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection."

"Preparation for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection. Preparations would have included removal of column enclosures or walls, weld torches to cut column sections, and placement of wires for detonation. Occupants, support staff and visitors would have noticed such activities, particularly since they likely would have occurred around more than one column" (p.27)

Interestingly, they really only look at one blast scenario based on their opinion that 'someone must've seen it, surely!'. I, too, would love to see such a detailed report on controlled demolition, but that isn't feasible for at least two reasons: (a) Who would finance X experts and researchers for an expansive research project such as that? (b) Such a project would suffer from the same severe limitations that NIST did, e.g. lack of physical evidence

[OzFox]

Quite so

It's almost as ridiculous as those idiots that still believe the US government would stage manage an attack on one of it's own warships ,( such as the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin ) as a pretext to get US full involvement in the Vietnam war

Totally unbelievable !!

Except of course for the fact that it just happens to be true

Don't forget Pearl Harbo(u)r. Everyone knew the Japs were coming. Roosevelt, Winston, the local Hula girls...

They've been at it for years those Yankees. Crafty buggers. Good thing you're keeping an eye on them. Might keep 'em on the straight and narrow.

[Zingari]

What, like fire made WTC 7 collapse

Let’s look at probable and improbable causes

Fire has never brought down a steel building and fires in high rise buildings are quite common, some have been raging infernos for over 20 hours ands suffered major structural damage to the concrete etc but the steel always remains fully intact

Controlled demolition is often used to bring about total failure of steel framed buildings in just the same manner as WTC7

The choice seems fairly easy to me, the only problem of course is how it was achieved in practice and when faced with all the evidence, this is the only reason people choose to doubt the controlled demolition theory. It is very difficult to accept that governments and institutions lie to us

But, is it more probable that someone is lying, or is it more probable that a building behaves in a way that it is almost certainly not capable of doing.

In other words, buildings can’t and don’t lie, people do , ( quite often and on a massive scale sometimes )

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

There is a programme come up on Sky's Geographical channel soon, about the current evidence, regarding this disaster.

It could be interesting.

[OzFox]

I reckon you've lost the plot on this one Zingari. At least the JFK thing was vaguely believable for a while but this...well.

Controlled demolitions are performed on relatively intact buildings in as sterile an envronment as possible. WTC7 on the other hand, had a 20 storey hole in it and was on fire. I would have thought this would have put a dent in the plans of even a top demolition expert like Danny Jowenko. Might have made the explosives a little unreliable. Uncontrollable even.

Speaking of Danny, if he hadn't had that huge hole and troublesome fire to deal with he probably would have done it like this:

Much more haphazard and believable. The Yanks obviously went to the wrong guy.

Also speaking of Danny, did you know he was dead? Smashed his car into a tree last month. On a remote country road. He was alone (apart from a dog which survived). Now THAT I find suspicious

[Zingari]

Jesus Christ , I didn't know that about Danny Jowenko ,

I'm actually physically shaking now !!

that's all from me about this for a while !

huge sighs of relief all round i know

[l444ry]

Yes and they were insignificant to the fires that caused the collapse according to NIST. I refer you to page 30 (3 paragraphs) in the report and again to page 48 which I'll quote here for convenience sake:

"Diesel fuels did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The wort-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e. Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed."

I suggest you glance over it too, marko

Funny how the NIST report is a work of fiction until it suits your argument. Laughable really, Shen!!!

[shen]

Funny how the NIST report is a work of fiction until it suits your argument. Laughable really, Shen!!!

I expect better than a snide remark, l444ry. At least point out where you think I'm going wrong here. I never said it was a work of fiction. I think they've gone a bit too easily over the explosives bit, based on a simple assumption that 'it would've been noticed, surely!'. They've however quite clearly stated that the damage effectively done by the falling debris from the second Tower did NOT affect the collapse. They also stated that the diesel 'in worst-case' scenario could only account for a few % of the total combustibles in the offices. The main fuel was office combustibles in the form of furniture, paper etc.

Following Zingari's video of insiders saying that the models used to recreate the collapse were tampered with (i.e. unrealistic values were entered for the thermal expansion of steel among others), I tried looking it up in the report. The mechanical properties of steel are referenced in Appendix E, only Appendix E is not featured in the report, so there's no way I can find the NISTs explanation for it.

[jonno24]

Find it hard to believe after the biggest ever terrorist attacks, the US government would get together and plan a controlled demolition of a building.

People really are strange.

Oh please the US government is capable of ANYTHING that goes for most governments around the world.

The Gulf Of tonkin incident = Staged as a pretence for war with Vietnam

So no matter how hard it is to believe they are capable of it.

[Rincewind]

There was a lot of methane in the building. The fans would take a bit of an hammering.

[wurmer]

This whole thing is a load off bollocks - the US government couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone something like all of this.

[jonno24]

This whole thing is a load off bollocks - the US government couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone something like all of this.

Case closed

[Wymsey]

.

[Fox92]

Saw the advert for the documentary yesterday, fairly chilling and horrid. Starts with one of the hostess' saying they have been hijacked then they hit one of the towers.

I'm going to watch the documentary because I'm very interested in aircraft, and I like reading/watching about this kind of stuff (very sick like). Don't think this kind of attack will happen again though, its abit obvious in my opinion. Blowing aircraft up they may do, but I can't see the bastards hitting a International recognized building again (hopefully not anyway).

[l444ry]

I expect better than a snide remark, l444ry. At least point out where you think I'm going wrong here. I never said it was a work of fiction. I think they've gone a bit too easily over the explosives bit, based on a simple assumption that 'it would've been noticed, surely!'. They've however quite clearly stated that the damage effectively done by the falling debris from the second Tower did NOT affect the collapse. They also stated that the diesel 'in worst-case' scenario could only account for a few % of the total combustibles in the offices. The main fuel was office combustibles in the form of furniture, paper etc.

Following Zingari's video of insiders saying that the models used to recreate the collapse were tampered with (i.e. unrealistic values were entered for the thermal expansion of steel among others), I tried looking it up in the report. The mechanical properties of steel are referenced in Appendix E, only Appendix E is not featured in the report, so there's no way I can find the NISTs explanation for it.

Didn't mean it to come across as a "snide remark." Most conspirators that I'm aware of continually ridicule the NIST report. My attempts at irony have obviously failed.

However, the point remains. The report comes to the conclusion that fires were the main cause and certainly not explosives.

Doesn't the same report also state that, "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," and that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

[Zingari]

Didn't mean it to come across as a "snide remark." Most conspirators that I'm aware of continually ridicule the NIST report. My attempts at irony have obviously failed.

However, the point remains. The report comes to the conclusion that fires were the main cause and certainly not explosives.

Doesn't the same report also state that, "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," and that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

yes and they admitted that they did not look for evidence , if you don't look for something you are hardly likely to find it !!

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives

As Documentation of Thermitic Materials

in the WTC Twin Towers Grows,

Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble

by

Jim Hoffman

ABEL: ... what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEWMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEWMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time....

--Conversation between a reporter and a NIST spokesperson

find it here

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html#draft_contents

no explosions ?

what is this then ? someone farting ?

you can hear the fireman say "that's building 7 ,it's exploding "

listen very carefully

i know i said i wouldn't post for a while though after hearing about the tragic death of Danny Jowenko

[Rincewind]

If it was a controlled explosion when were the explosions planted. Before when the place was full with workers or when it was on fire and in danger of collapsing? Has any demolition expert come forward to say they were involved in pplanting explosives.

It seems that one of the main reasons for thinking it was a controlled collapse was that it collapsed similar to that of a controlled explosion thats fine for a start but for me I need something to back it up other someone saything they thought they heard a loud bang. The video I saw I thought the building was too far away to say definately how the building collapsed. The distance may have been deceiving as was the angle the film was shot.