Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Merging Cultures]

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.

Not putting my faith in anyone. I just think it is interesting. As I said I've been quick to dismiss conspiracy theories, but I'll do some more reading on this one.

[Babylon]

Is this shit still going on!!

[MooseBreath]

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

The molten steel mentioned in the FEMA report? Presumably you think that FEMA weren't in on it then, that they were reporting things as they saw it and their report can be trusted and taken on face value?

[Zingari]

The molten steel mentioned in the FEMA report? Presumably you think that FEMA weren't in on it then, that they were reporting things as they saw it and their report can be trusted and taken on face value?

No I'm just asking where the molten steel physically came from. I  don't see why the question needs to be loaded with other inferences.

I'm not asking or implying anything about FEMA's involvement .

If molten steel was present in the building at all , then it wasn't due to simple office fires. correct?

So what caused the steel to melt ?it's a simple enough question .Where did the molten steel come from? 

 

http://youtu.be/tm3Ot1JxNdE

[Finnegan]

I absolutely love that part of Zingo's Christmas day is arguing on the internet about 9/11 conspiracies.

[MooseBreath]

Do you trust the FEMA report or not Zingo, that's the question.

[Zingari]

I absolutely love that part of Zingo's Christmas day is arguing on the internet about 9/11 conspiracies.

:xmasbiggrin:

 

i've just checked my turkey in the oven and neither the turkey nor the oven is showing any signs of melting or collapsing 

[Finnegan]

:xmasbiggrin:

Merry Christmas, Zingari.

[Zingari]

Merry Christmas, Zingari.

same to you Finners , and have a great new year too and that goes to all of you 

 

 

 

Christmas day and 911 are days of miracle and wonder :xmaswink:

[Rincewind]

I was on my laptop earlier and looked at my clock to see what time it was 9/11. What does this sygnify?

[Babylon]

I was on my laptop earlier and looked at my clock to see what time it was 9/11. What does this sygnify?

If you are a conspiracy theorist, anything you want it to.

[Zingari]

Scene of the Crime,  WTC 7 collapse

A ) A steel framed building can be brought down rapidly and symmetrically at virtually free-fall speed using well placed cutter charges in a  pre planned demolition operation 

 Fact,  undeniable and easily demonstrable.with  plenty of examples of previous building collapsing using this method.

Problem ; how was it was achieved ?

Difficult problem , but solvable with only a little imagination but not really relevant to the "actual physical cause of the collapse".  

 

B) A steel framed building can be brought down rapidly and symmetrically at virtually free-fall speed using falling debris , uncontrolled office fires burning for  8 hours. 

Theory ; Provable only in  nist report papers and  computer animations with data unavailable to independent researchers and not repeatable in a practical demonstration . 

Problems ; Many reports of explosions, foreknowledge of collapse, an unprecedented event in history  ,  evidence of metal heated to temperatures not attainable in ordinary fires ?

Difficult problems to answer and reliant on a constant denial of the freely available film footage of explosions and witness testimonies claiming explosives ..  An unshakable  belief that if there was a real problem " someone  would talk".  And a claim that although it is unprecedented , the day itself was unprecedented and this obviously can result in a sequence of events that can't be recreated.  

 

Genuine Questions , 

Why is B preferable to A when trying to ascertain how a building collapsed?

Why is A not even considered  as even  a possibility,  only in he minds of tinfoilers?  

[Babylon]

Why do you continue this? You only listen to and accept as fact anything that points the finger in the way you want it to go, so it's an utterly pointless discussion.

[fleckneymike]

Why do you continue this? You only listen to and accept as fact anything that points the finger in the way you want it to go, so it's an utterly pointless discussion.

You've been warned once already. Any future attempts to employ logic or common sense will be dealt with most severely.

Now I'm off to set up a demolitions firm in light of the news that it is incredibly simple.

[Zingari]

You've been warned once already. Any future attempts to employ logic or common sense will be dealt with most severely.

Now I'm off to set up a demolitions firm in light of the news that it is incredibly simple.

here's a tip for you mike , setting fire to a building won't do the trick 

don't try it without rdx or cutting charges  , i doubt if you'll bring owt down without them  :xmasbiggrin:

[MooseBreath]

So you've gone all the way back to the 'no perfect precedent' argument even though we've already established that no perfect precedent exists to back up either theory, thus proving absolutely nothing?

In the meantime you've acknowledged that you've never even read the official report, failed to answer how the spread of fire from the towers was so precisely controlled as to land exactly where they needed it to land on WTC7, and used a FEMA report to bring up a point about molten steel, but you are unable to say whether or not you even believe the report (presumably because the rest of the report goes against you and you know that you're simply picking and chosing things to suit your opinion)

Either you're stupid (unlikely), seriously deluded (possible) or plain old trolling, deriving humour from people's exasperated attempts to point out the obvious (seems most likely)

[Zingari]

So you've gone all the way back to the 'no perfect precedent' argument even though we've already established that no perfect precedent exists to back up either theory, thus proving absolutely nothing?

In the meantime you've acknowledged that you've never even read the official report, failed to answer how the spread of fire from the towers was so precisely controlled as to land exactly where they needed it to land on WTC7, and used a FEMA report to bring up a point about molten steel, but you are unable to say whether or not you even believe the report (presumably because the rest of the report goes against you and you know that you're simply picking and chosing things to suit your opinion)

Either you're stupid (unlikely), seriously deluded (possible) or plain old trolling, deriving humour from people's exasperated attempts to point out the obvious (seems most likely)

In the meantime you've acknowledged that you've never even read the official report,

 Quite so , but I have read the criticisms ( have you?) and cross referenced the points raised in the official reports on the pages they appear. 

 

you've  failed to answer how the spread of fire from the towers was so precisely controlled as to land exactly where they needed it to land on WTC7, 

 

 Jesus wept , I don't need to do that because I don't think fire caused the collapse and I don't think the (WTC1 )collapse caused the fires, ( as i've tried to explain,  Barry Jennings was in the building prior to both collapses and said on 911 that the stairwell collapsed below him "before" either collapse , WHY ?) So now  why would I waste a moment explaining how flames were so precise to do the damage when I don't even think they were the cause and in all probabilty were started deliberately  as a cover for the real destructive forces.  

 

and used a FEMA report to bring up a point about molten steel, but you are unable to say whether or not you even believe the report , presumably because the rest of the report goes against you and you know that you're simply picking and choosing things to suit your opinion. 

 

There is no reason to believe a report that openly admits to be a hypothesis with a "low probability of occurance.  Why would anyone believe a word with that tacked on the end of it? . And  i'm not picking and choosing , you are. you're ignoring the evidence of molten steel both from FEMA admission  AND the physical evidence of it . 

 

 

 

Now , once more in hope rather than expectation.  Where did the flames come from to melt the steel ?  The same flames that are evident not just because of FEMA reporting , but the evidence of the  fused cross , the swiss cheese metal beams and the firefighters reporting seeing molten steel ?

Why are you avoiding this simple question?

 

 

Oh and no-one is forcing you to answer me moose , other than possibly something niggling at your brain  :xmassmile: 

[Captain...]

Here's a thought, what if there were charges placed in WTC7, but not placed there by the government, the main problem people have with the conspiracy theory is that the government did it, because to do so would make no sense, if you were looking for support to start a war, flying planes into WTC 1 and 2, would be more than enough.

 

But there is evidence that suggests that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, watching it fall compared to any other building collapse, and the fact that steel wouldn't melt at normaly temperatures caused by office fires, and when you compare the liklihood of the 2 scenarios, taking away all conspiracy aspects of it, I agree with Zing, that a controlled demolition seems a lot more likely.

 

But I don't believe that it was the US government, so why couldn't it have been part of the terrorist plot? This was the most extreme and well co-ordinated terrorist attack ever orchestrated, if we presume that they wanted to cripple the US, take out it's trading heart, military heart and wherever the fourth plane was going, then maybe they viewed WTC 7 as an important target. Weren't able to fly a plane into it, but managed to break in and set charges. If they were able to co-ordinate the hi-jacking of 4 planes, I believe they could be able to co-ordinate the planting of charges.

 

Reading the 2 arguments on here, I find Zing the most convincing in how WTC 7 came down (controlled charges), but not why (it makes no sense for the US government to do it).

[purpleronnie]

seems odd that you find zings arguement more convincing despite the huge amount of evidence to the contrary.

 

As to why demolition experts aren't using fire to bring down buildings well most of the cost of a demolition is in making it safe and avoid collateral damage so it seems that the risks of taking buildings down by fire just isn't a sensible one.

[Captain...]

seems odd that you find zings arguement more convincing despite the huge amount of evidence to the contrary.

 

I've not seen or read any evidence to the contrary, just speculation, speculation from people with more knowledge than me, but speculation none the less, there is no evidence that cutter charges weren't used, there is no way to prove they weren't used. There is evidence that contradicts the official story and that is the presence of molten steel, and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires, a completely unprecendented occurance that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings.

[purpleronnie]

I've not seen or read any evidence to the contrary, just speculation, speculation from people with more knowledge than me, but speculation none the less, there is no evidence that cutter charges weren't used, there is no way to prove they weren't used. There is evidence that contradicts the official story and that is the presence of molten steel, and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires, a completely unprecendented occurance that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings.

So shifting the burden of proof is the answer is it?

 

Well theres no evidence that an invisible troll smashed it over either.

[Captain...]

So shifting the burden of proof is the answer is it?

Well theres no evidence that an invisible troll smashed it over either.

I thought you would have pulled out all this evidence rather than just arguing semantics.

There has been no adequate explanation as to how a few small fires took down an entire building in a uniform manner, when you can see videos of buildings engulfed in flames burning for hours and still be standing.

[purpleronnie]

I thought you would have pulled out all this evidence rather than just arguing semantics.

There has been no adequate explanation as to how a few small fires took down an entire building in a uniform manner, when you can see videos of buildings engulfed in flames burning for hours and still be standing.

What evidence do you require? There is no evidence that contradicts the official story.

[Rincewind]

Would everyone agree that no two building fires, collapses or controlled collapses have been exactly the same?

[MooseBreath]

I thought you would have pulled out all this evidence rather than just arguing semantics.

There has been no adequate explanation as to how a few small fires took down an entire building in a uniform manner, when you can see videos of buildings engulfed in flames burning for hours and still be standing.

No adequate explanation apart from the NIST report you mean? Which was produced in collaboration with hundreds of professional expert individuals and organisations and provides a thorough explanation as to exactly how and why it collapsed, as well as supplementary information which answers all of the most common queries?

If that doesn't qualify as "adequate" to you, then what does?