Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Zingari]

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.

So we have BBC reports predicting the building's imminent collapse right ? , we have fema claiming they can't explain why it collapsed months after  ?  and we have nist coming up with the theory of why it collapsed years later?

 

 How did reporters know in advance on the day of 911 of a collapse before it happened  , if it took years of investigation to explain it ?  surely the explanation would be readily available on the day,

 

if BBC reporters knew on the day it was going to collapse before it happened  , then someone must have told  them . So how did they know about the possibility of a collapse if it had never happened before , and why were FEMA  at a loss as to explain it ? 

[fleckneymike]

So we have BBC reports predicting the building's imminent collapse right ? , we have fema claiming they can't explain why it collapsed months after  ?  and we have nist coming up with the theory of why it collapsed years later?

 

 How did reporters know in advance on the day of 911 of a collapse before it happened  , if it took years of investigation to explain it ?  surely the explanation would be readily available on the day,

 

if BBC reporters knew on the day it was going to collapse before it happened  , then someone must have told  them . So how did they know about the possibility of a collapse if it had never happened before , and why were FEMA  at a loss as to explain it ?

Reuters told them. Reuters then retracted the story when they discovered it was false. The reporting of the building being unsafe was widespread. As you well know there is even footage of a first responder telling anyone who will listen that WT7 will collapse and there is nothing that can be done.

Once again we're reverting back to the contradictory super intelligent and simultaneously super dumb evil conspirators theory.

[Zingari]

Reuters told them. Reuters then retracted the story when they discovered it was false. The reporting of the building being unsafe was widespread. As you well know there is even footage of a first responder telling anyone who will listen that WT7 will collapse and there is nothing that can be done.

Once again we're reverting back to the contradictory super intelligent and simultaneously super dumb evil conspirators theory.

So who told reuters a building that wasn't hit by an aeroplane was in a dangerous unstable  condition and likely to totally collapse ? why did the bbc believe it ?

your just pushing the problem to the back of the cupboard .

 

edit please don't bother to answer that it' s a time of family celebration now   :xmasbiggrin: merry xmas all 

 

 

 

 

On a personal note i really do enjoy our little discussions fleckney Mike,   Moosey, OZ.  Marco shen . harborough  danny rincy   etc etc ( im an old git , please dont ask me to remember you all ) :xmassmile:  

We seem to have some heated discussions without the need for personal insults and at least an appearance of mutual respect , so long may that continue and i really wish you a merry xmas and new year   :xmaswink:

 

i've had too much cheap port today , so please forgive my waffling  :xmasbiggrin:

[shen]

It wasn't just fire though was it zing?

 

For the umpteenth time, YES IT WAS! The official report states that the primary cause for the collapse was uncontrolled fires. The damage done by the debris was, at best, of secondary (if any) importance. The debris was claimed to have instigated the fires which due to very extraordinary circumstances spread across the building on the lower floors (which were cut off from water supply unlike the upper floors) and caused the whole thing to collapse from THERMAL EXPANSION ALONE.

 

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.

 

I never claimed it was likely, and I too doubt whether using thermite is actually feasible. But the report itself doesn't hide from the fact that physical evidence is sparse and how the operation would've been planned is pretty speculative at best. The explanation offered by the NIST about the collapse is pretty out there already which I'm sure you'll acknowledge too.

 

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?

 

You're missing out the point that the premise for you question is that the ordinary fires in allegedly extraordinary circumstances could bring down the building in the first place. The theory proposed by NIST is very elaborate and requires a long series of frankly astounding occurrences to have happened. I'm not blaming the NIST for this, I'm sure that this is actually the most plausible (if extremely unlikely) explanation given the evidence available to them.

I am however astounded that more scenarios were not tried out on this model of theirs. A near free fall collapse surely should have invoked some curiosity to test their model using a planned demolition scenario.

[Rincewind]

 

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 ?

 

The star of life on the planet is hard to create. One in a billion chance of the right elements mixing to create life.

 

Or God did it.

 

It is a lot simpler to say God did it.

[OzFox]

Interesting, as the NIST report I've read concludes that the falling debris from the WTC towers had minimal effect on the collapse of WTC 7 other than starting fires in the corner that was in closest proximity to the towers... which incidentally was on the opposite side of the critical support beam that buckled and allegedly caused the entire collapse of the building. It did NOT collapse because of the WTC towers doing damage to it. I suggest you read it over again before you start getting too smug.

The NIST report says debris from the north tower ignited fires on at least ten floors of WTC7. I'd hardly call that "minimal effect" especially when they say that some of those fires led to its eventual collapse. Maybe you should read it over again, and the Commission Report, then you can share in my smugness.

You're asking me to believe that several hours after the collapse of the twin towers, in front of hundreds of live TV cameras, journalists, members of the emergency services and just about everyone in Jersey City, the US government deliberately blew up a dirty great skyscraper with lots of very loud explosives and that only a few people noticed.

'Highly unlikely' is the polite way of putting it. Even Bush wouldn't be THAT daft

[MooseBreath]

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that after the collapse of two towers that had been on fire, a third tower that was also on fire might also collapse. I'm the frenzy of such a chaotic day, it would be incredible if there weren't a few instances of incorrect reporting.

Indeed right after the 2nd plane had been filmed hitting the 2nd tower, we had news reporters saying it was an explosion and not even a plane. No doubt somewhere out there in whacko conspiracy land, someone is using that as 'evidence' that there weren't actually any planes at all.

[Zingari]

Right, speculation time .  Many people seem to think that it would be impossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in plain sight of the workers in the building , and on the surface this seems to be true .

However if you have someone on the inside in charge of building security and maintenance ( someone like Marvin Bush for example) it really becomes simpliciy itself , childsplay even.

 

 Most of the work could could be carried out at night by workers completely in ignorance of what they were doing , as would be the security guards.But even in the daytime it's not that hard to imagine

 All they need to do is bolt a brief case sized box to the columns at a specified height etc . the workmen  wouldn't know or need to know it was a remote controlled cutter charge inside . Something such as "ACME ENVIRONMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS" could be labelled on the box .  Who would question it ? They were just workman in overalls with security passes just telling everyone they upgrading the air conditioning , lighting heating system to be controlled by a centralised computer.( or something along these lines )

 

Imagine you were working and an engineer came into the office and did something like this , would you A , run out screaming they were planning on blowing up the building, or B Just accept it at face value ?

[MooseBreath]

You're missing out the point that the premise for you question is that the ordinary fires in allegedly extraordinary circumstances could bring down the building in the first place. The theory proposed by NIST is very elaborate and requires a long series of frankly astounding occurrences to have happened. I'm not blaming the NIST for this, I'm sure that this is actually the most plausible (if extremely unlikely) explanation given the evidence available to them.

I am however astounded that more scenarios were not tried out on this model of theirs. A near free fall collapse surely should have invoked some curiosity to test their model using a planned demolition scenario.

You haven't answered the question though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your theory goes that someone conspired to complete a controlled demolition of WTC7 while passing it off as being caused by a terrorist attack. For the cover story to be plausible, they relied on the collapse of the two towers showering WTC7 in just enough fire in just enough places so that people would believe the fires caused the collapse. If this hadn't have happened, they would not have had any cover story for their controlled demolition. So how did they ensure that the towers would fall in the exact way required to throw debris and fire exactly where they needed it onto WTC7? It's one thing controlling a demolition, quite another controlling the type, volume and trajectory of debris coming from an uncontrollable collapse.

Don't tell me, they had blokes with fireworks in the towers as they collapsed, firing the fireworks across to WTC7 just to be sure.

[shen]

The NIST report says debris from the north tower ignited fires on at least ten floors of WTC7. I'd hardly call that "minimal effect" especially when they say that some of those fires led to its eventual collapse. Maybe you should read it over again, and the Commission Report, then you can share in my smugness.

You're asking me to believe that several hours after the collapse of the twin towers, in front of hundreds of live TV cameras, journalists, members of the emergency services and just about everyone in Jersey City, the US government deliberately blew up a dirty great skyscraper with lots of very loud explosives and that only a few people noticed.

'Highly unlikely' is the polite way of putting it. Even Bush wouldn't be THAT daft

 

Oz.. you have eyes to read with mate. You're repeating my post that you just quoted! Your initial post claimed it was the DAMAGE done to WTC7 by the debris AND the fires, when it really was just the fires. Which I just used another post to point out to purpleronnie. Bit rich then coming from you to tell me to read it over again then.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, a scenario like the one Zing just posted would be straight from a movie, but not impossible at all.

 

You haven't answered the question though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your theory goes that someone conspired to complete a controlled demolition of WTC7 while passing it off as being caused by a terrorist attack. For the cover story to be plausible, they relied on the collapse of the two towers showering WTC7 in just enough fire in just enough places so that people would believe the fires caused the collapse. If this hadn't have happened, they would not have had any cover story for their controlled demolition. So how did they ensure that the towers would fall in the exact way required to throw debris and fire exactly where they needed it onto WTC7? It's one thing controlling a demolition, quite another controlling the type, volume and trajectory of debris coming from an uncontrollable collapse.

Don't tell me, they had blokes with fireworks in the towers as they collapsed, firing the fireworks across to WTC7 just to be sure.

 

It's a good question Moose, one that I can't answer. For the building to have gone down otherwise, there should have been a different source for the fire. If there was, then that wouldn't have changed the cover up at all. Twin Towers go down with all the other documented consequences leading to a fire starting nearby. It would not have been that much less plausible. The NIST have refuted other sources for the fires, so I have to take their word for it.

 

Interestingly, look at how many in this thread alone have suggested, erroneously, that the structural damage done by the falling debris had a bearing on the collapse. It's not exactly been picked up on by you, fleckney etc despite it being wrong. Why is that?

[MooseBreath]

Because we've read the NIST report which says it was the fires and not the direct impact of the debris which caused the collapse, I expect.

[Collymore]

I think we need to tread carefully around the conspiracy. Lots of people lost their lives and I feel uneasy making assumptions from non-concrete evidence.

 

The one thing I will say is that certain people (probably not in the spot light but pulling the strings) have used the event to their advantage to gain more control over the public. 

 

Whether they "arranged" the event will probably be never known.

 

I think the public backlash against the proposed invasion of Syria shows that taking over the world isn't going to be handed to them that easily, although they will see it as a marathon not a sprint. 

[fleckneymike]

 

Right, speculation time .  Many people seem to think that it would be impossible to rig a building for controlled demolition in plain sight of the workers in the building , and on the surface this seems to be true .

However if you have someone on the inside in charge of building security and maintenance ( someone like Marvin Bush for example) it really becomes simpliciy itself , childsplay even.

 

 Most of the work could could be carried out at night by workers completely in ignorance of what they were doing , as would be the security guards.But even in the daytime it's not that hard to imagine

 All they need to do is bolt a brief case sized box to the columns at a specified height etc . the workmen  wouldn't know or need to know it was a remote controlled cutter charge inside . Something such as "ACME ENVIRONMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS" could be labelled on the box .  Who would question it ? They were just workman in overalls with security passes just telling everyone they upgrading the air conditioning , lighting heating system to be controlled by a centralised computer.( or something along these lines )

 

Imagine you were working and an engineer came into the office and did something like this , would you A , run out screaming they were planning on blowing up the building, or B Just accept it at face value ?

 

 

Sorry, this is getting rather tricky to follow now. Are we now saying that in order to hide the deliberate demolition of WTC7 they brought down WTC1 and 2 so they could start fires in WTC7?

 

I'm obviously no evil genius but personally, rather than sneaking in a night to do the apparently simple task of rigging a building for demolition but disguising it at as a fire caused by me flying planes into two other building so one of them could fall onto the building I'd rigged and start fires wouldn't I just forgo the stress and public attention of flying two planes into two tall buildings and collapsing them and simply stick with the fire technique to hide the demolition?

 

Like I said, I am no evil genius, but wouldn't that be a lot easier?

[shen]

Because we've read the NIST report which says it was the fires and not the direct impact of the debris which caused the collapse, I expect.

 

Then why not tell them they've got it wrong? I get this distinctive 'us' and 'them' vibe in this thread. One is either a "wacko conspiracy nutjob theorist" or "a blind official story believer". I'm sure either you or fleckney would have jumped on a person making an erroneous claim had he/she represented the opposite position to you.

[purpleronnie]

For the umpteenth time, YES IT WAS! The official report states that the primary cause for the collapse was uncontrolled fires. The damage done by the debris was, at best, of secondary (if any) importance. The debris was claimed to have instigated the fires which due to very extraordinary circumstances spread across the building on the lower floors (which were cut off from water supply unlike the upper floors) and caused the whole thing to collapse from THERMAL EXPANSION ALONE.

 

 

 

so like I said it wasnt just the fires, whether the damage was secondary or not it still has an effect.  The fact it had a huge hole in the middle of the building as much as a 20 stories high surely can't be ruled out as a factor.

[shen]

so like I said it wasnt just the fires, whether the damage was secondary or not it still has an effect.  The fact it had a huge hole in the middle of the building as much as a 20 stories high surely can't be ruled out as a factor.

 

No, like I said, it was just the fires. The structural damage only played a role in bringing down the exterior shell faster than it might normally have done, but by this time the building was already collapsing. The NIST model showed that even without the structural damage done by the debris, the building would have collapsed. So it can be ruled out as a factor.

[purpleronnie]

No, like I said, it was just the fires. The structural damage only played a role in bringing down the exterior shell faster than it might normally have done, but by this time the building was already collapsing. The NIST model showed that even without the structural damage done by the debris, the building would have collapsed. So it can be ruled out as a factor.

Ah so people are picking parts of the Nist reports that aligns with their conspiracy beliefs and dismiss the parts that don't.

 

 

About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, near the load capacity for some of them

[Zingari]

Ah so people are picking parts of the Nist reports that aligns with their conspiracy beliefs and dismiss the parts that don't.

I doubt if 13% is enough to cause total collapse , these buildings are massively over engineered to withstand 100 mph storm forces etc and of course for fire  . And it still doesn't account for the symmetry . surely asymmetric damage wound cause asymmetric collapse. Weakened steel buckles and bends for sure and parts of the building could fall away without a doubt , but this is an almost superb collapse   

[OzFox]

Oz.. you have eyes to read with mate. You're repeating my post that you just quoted! Your initial post claimed it was the DAMAGE done to WTC7 by the debris AND the fires, when it really was just the fires. Which I just used another post to point out to purpleronnie. Bit rich then coming from you to tell me to read it over again then

Falling debris caused damage which started fires which collapsed the building. It's very, very simple.

You're trying to imply the falling debris had 'minimal effect' to use your own words

[Zingari]

WHERE DID THE MOLTEN STEEL COME FROM ?

 

For those few people who were paying attention, the mysteriousness of this collapse was not lessened by the first official report about it, which was issued by FEMA in 2002. This report put forward what it called its “best hypothesis†as to why the building collapsed, but then added that this hypothesis had “only a low probability of occurrence.

 

This FEMA report, in fact, increased the mystery, thanks to an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese.

James Glanz, pointing out that the fires in the building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, referred to this discovery as “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.â€

 

 

 

 

So we just have to forget about the molten steel ? How did the fires cause this ?

[separator]

Why cause WTC7 to collapse when both main WTC towers had fallen. Sureley if its a political thing then the two WTC would have been enough.

[Zingari]

Why cause WTC7 to collapse when both main WTC towers had fallen. Sureley if its a political thing then the two WTC would have been enough.

This sort of question , while being understanably relevant to the whole picture , keeps leading us back into pure speculation.There is plenty of very convincing speculation if you want to google it.  The fact is though, we really don't know why . But that doesn't mean we have to accept it wasn't demolished just because we don't for sure know why .  That's not how crimes are solved. Firstly the crime is established , then you look for means motive and opportunity.

 

For any sort of structure ( other than living things with an ability to balance)  to collapse symetrically , everything that is supporting it  needs to collapse simutaneously , otherwise whatever is left still supporting it will offer resistance and cause it to topple and fall over towards and into  the path of lesser resistance, not come straight down through the resistance of whatever is still supporting any part of it. .

Damage to one side of the building and random fires really  isn't capable of having such a precise outcome. Planned demolision does have this capability , so why dismiss the most likely possibility of this type of  collapse and instead opt for the most unlikely.

If ever you see any sort of structure  from a kitchen table to a massive steel building collapse symetrically straight down into the spot where it once stood  , you can be pretty certain it was planned that way and not just random sequence of uncontrolled events .

There's even plenty of supporting evidence to back up this most likely cause , from witness testimonies of explosions and forehand knowledge of the collapse, evidence of molten steel  etc etc

quick interesting vid to watch 

[Merging Cultures]

Why cause WTC7 to collapse when both main WTC towers had fallen. Sureley if its a political thing then the two WTC would have been enough.

This sort of question , while being understanably relevant to the whole picture , keeps leading us back into pure speculation.There is plenty of very convincing speculation if you want to google it. The fact is though, we really don't know why . But that doesn't mean we have to accept it wasn't demolished just because we don't for sure know why . That's not how crimes are solved. Firstly the crime is established , then you look for means motive and opportunity.

For any sort of structure ( other than living things with an ability to balance) to collapse symetrically , everything that is supporting it needs to collapse simutaneously , otherwise whatever is left still supporting it will offer resistance and cause it to topple and fall over towards and into the path of lesser resistance, not come straight down through the resistance of whatever is still supporting any part of it. .

Damage to one side of the building and random fires really isn't capable of having such a precise outcome. Planned demolision does have this capability , so why dismiss the most likely possibility of this type of collapse and instead opt for the most unlikely.

If ever you see any sort of structure from a kitchen table to a massive steel building collapse symetrically straight down into the spot where it once stood , you can be pretty certain it was planned that way and not just random sequence of uncontrolled events .

There's even plenty of supporting evidence to back up this most likely cause , from witness testimonies of explosions and forehand knowledge of the collapse, evidence of molten steel etc etc

quick interesting vid to watch

Very interesting.

I've been quick to dismiss the conspiracies in the past. However, I didn't look into them nor did I know about WTC7.

The collapse of the building looks to precise. I doubt fire would have spread so quickly that it would have damaged the buildings core infrastructure so evenly. It should fall to one side, or more likely to me, a partial collapse. But it drops (nearly) straight down, without much pancaking.

Weird.

[MooseBreath]

If you want to know how and why it fell as it did (which was not perfectly symmetrical anyway, and clearly 'caved in' on the inside which you wouldn't want if it was controlled) then just read the NIST report which explains exactly how and why it fell as it did. Until then you're putting your faith in smooth talking youtubers who are making money from keeping the conspiracy going.

[Zingari]

Very interesting.

I've been quick to dismiss the conspiracies in the past. However, I didn't look into them nor did I know about WTC7.

The collapse of the building looks to precise. I doubt fire would have spread so quickly that it would have damaged the buildings core infrastructure so evenly. It should fall to one side, or more likely to me, a partial collapse. But it drops (nearly) straight down, without much pancaking.

Weird.

unfortunately that is how most people have been thinking since 9 11  , but congrats on trying to understand the problems now 

If you want to know how and why it fell as it did (which was not perfectly symmetrical anyway, and clearly 'caved in' on the inside which you wouldn't want if it was controlled) then just read the NIST report which explains exactly how and why it fell as it did. Until then you're putting your faith in smooth talking youtubers who are making money from keeping the conspiracy going.

Direct me to the page  in the nist report that explains how the steel got hot enough to melt. or do you still believe if it doesn't fit the official narrative it  didn't  happen? 

And what evidence is there of youtube video makers becoming rich ? quite the opposite is the reality , many are finding their professional and personal lives blighted now ( Kevin Ryan , Steve Jones, Kevin Barrett Richard Gage, Danny Jowenko  etc etc )  for even  trying to question the problems of the collapse