Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Guest Bilo]

WTC7 is suspect but the amount of people that would have to be involved and stay silent, the level of organisation required to pull it off in secret as well as development of previously unused techniques of controlled demolition absolutely rule out the prospect of there being any inside job on 9/11. I do believe however that the Saudi intelligence services knew more than they let on in the build-up to the atrocities and allowed it to happen for domestic reasons, possibly the Israelis too.

Explosives couldn't have brought down WTC7. The building was badly damaged and on fire so any explosives present would have been useless. Also, have you ever seen a normal controlled demolition? The detonation of the charges can be heard and seen hundreds of yards away, all of the buildings in WTC Plaza collapsed in near silence, even when filmed from the base of the towers.

[Rincewind]

If it was planned before someone would have known about the attack by aircraft and time the explosives to detonate to coincide with it. If it was after the attack the building would have been on fire, part of the building would have gone and fresh calculations would have had to be made ast where to place the explosives as the 'design/shape' of the building would have change. This would have to be done instantly before the building collapsed natually

I dont know all the physics side of things I leave that to the experts. Even if they had searched for evidence for an explosion and found none there would still be people that would say that the investigaters were lying.

[l444ry]

no explosions ?

what is this then ? someone farting ?

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

listen very carefully

Are you sure that you are hearing what you want to hear, Zingari? I can't hear anything such as you claim!

The words as best as I can hear them:

Policeman 1 (the man on the phone with the cloth over his head)

"Here's one of the guys that can tell you that I'm OK, alright? - (hands phone to Policeman 2) "here you are...do you want to call your mother or something?"

Policeman 2 (tall man with black air mask and grey cloth over shoulder)

"hello?"

Loud noise makes the two policemen flinch and look around towards the noise (The direction of the WTC Towers).

Fireman 1 walks up (wearing white mask)

"(You are ?) not supposed to be right now, you gotta get back from here, you know that, they gotta get back, the second's gonna fall down....

Fireman 2 (previously unseen, wearing helmet and black mask)

"Alright just hold it, I know"

Policeman 1

"don't worry about me"

Fireman 2

"you need to make calls, I know"

[Zingari]

l444ry , you've been claiming there were "no explosions " and now you're saying this s an explosion in relation to the second tower

[l444ry]

l444ry , you've been claiming there were "no explosions " and now you're saying this s an explosion in relation to the second tower

I remember reading about this video quite some time ago. Apparently it has been doctored for effect for a Hungarian (or some place) documentary. Something to do with the time displayed on one of the mens watches not tallying with the "explosion". Been trying to find the source all morning but drawing a big blank!!

[Rincewind]

Couldnt quite make it out what was said something about getting out of there. The noise could have been steel girder/concrete hitting the ground which might mean it was falling down a piece at at a time. When it collapsed the building was not whole it it would have been different to a comletely constructed building.

Some noises are deceptive. Imagine a hundred or so tons of concrete hittingthe ground and the noise it would generate.

I rember working on a site and a SO I was with came into the office and said he could hear what sounded like gunfire. I called my office to report and within 15 min the ARU arrived. It turned out it may have been kids throwing stones on the roof. We were deceived by what was heard. Maybe because we heard what we didnt want to hear. Our minds played tricks on us. Well more the other bloke but I assumed he was right.

[Zingari]

I remember reading about this video quite some time ago. Apparently it has been doctored for effect for a Hungarian (or some place) documentary. Something to do with the time displayed on one of the mens watches not tallying with the "explosion". Been trying to find the source all morning but drawing a big blank!!

ah i see , yes i suppose there could be some amount of doctoring of all these videos , that is a good point , but i till maintain it's a controlled demolition , by the judgement of my own eyes and more importantly the diligent work of AE911

ps it still sounds like "7's exploding" to me

[shen]

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.

Fair enough, don't know how I was supposed to get that.

Obviously, by concluding that the building collapsed because of fires, they also dismiss the need for blast hypotheses. Moreover, if the steel structure was so weak as to crumble in heat much lower than what it should be able to withstand, wouldn't it be plausible to assume that the same steel structure would be weakened vis-a-vis a blast explosion, i.e. they miscalculated the explosives needed to cause column failure? We don't know the factors they included in these calculations, which should allegedly be presented in Appendix E. They said that they refuted the other five hypothetical blast setups because they would've required more than 4kg RDX explosives or that such operations would've been detected by occupants, support staff or visitors . Are you kidding me? They're not saying "this couldn't have happened because it would've been picked up by security cameras, police staff or routine security checks", but that some random people, who would not necessarily know what a blast setup looks like, would snoop around in the basement where they had no business whatsoever.

But you're right, the report does not support a blast hypothesis and my suspicions might be misguided. But the passages about the blast hypotheses are almost amateurish compared to the rest of the paper, and this indicates that they never took this option seriously despite a fire collapse being a more outlandish probability.

Are you sure that you are hearing what you want to hear, Zingari? I can't hear anything such as you claim!

It's very hard to hear clearly. I think I hear the word 'explosion' between seconds 13 and 14, although that doesn't tell us much if anything...

[Zingari]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE2vP4h09LE&feature=player_embedded#!

l444ry regarding the firemen in the video . This is the italian video posted earlier.

I can't speak/read Italian but the transcript on this video looks to me as though the fireman is saying "7" because that is the only number that appears on the screen

I still think the Fireman in white mask is saying "we've gotta get back seven's exploding "

Of course the interpreters could be wrong too

I recommend watching it all, but if you want the bit that I'm referring to fast forward to 4:50 mins

[Rincewind]

I can see a major film coming out out of this.

Reporter receives a package from a friend. In the package is a fragment of metal and a note. It is from an old friend. In the letter it says, I must see you I have some evidence that will blow this country apart (maybe inapropriate words but the beinning of the film has to grab the viewers interest) It goes on I must see you.

So the reporter goes to the meeting place and the bloke fails to show so he goes round to the house only to be told by the fellas wife that he had been killed in a freak accident of some sort whilst driving home.

At the PM the coronor says that the bloke had a quantity of whisky in his system so concludes death by drink driving.

The reporter is suspicious when the wife tells him that could not be so cos he was allergic to whisky.

The reporter goes to his editor and says he'd like to investigate further. The editor agrees but next morning calls him in and says on no account must he investigate further The reporter notices the editor is very nervous.

Hoever the reporter goes home and receives a call from someone who says they are from an underground group that uncover conspiricies. He agrees to meet them and they show him films of 9/11.

On his return home he finds his home has been broken into and a man in a black suit is waiting for him. The MIB warns him investigating further.

Rest is for the script writers. A couple more mysterious deaths a few car chases and a nail biting ending.

Steven Spielberg where are you?

[Zingari]

Not for the first time in this thread that I'm completely at a loss as to wtf you are going on about with regard to the collapse of WTC7 Nighty

Another question that is often posed regarding the collapse of wtc7 is the fact that it was announced on TV that the building had collapsed almost an hour before it actually did And firemen are reported to be clearing the area and stating that a collapse was imminent almost 4 hours earlier

Considering that a steel structured building had never before collapsed due to fire , how did they know WTC7 was going to collapse at least 4 hours before it actually did . ( because obviously at this time the it was only half way through the supposed fires that supposed to have demolished it so spectacularly)

They cannot have suspected collapse was due to fire , as this had never happened before, they must have known or been told something else.

Sorry but it still looks mighty suspicious to me and I’ve not heard a really reasonable explanation for this anomaly yet , as no other buildings that were much worse were predicted to fall .

[Rincewind]

Just mucking about and letting my imagination run wild.

I think its reasonable to predict an unstable ibuilding s going to collapse. The emergancy services werte keeping people from going near. What was reported may have been a partial collapse as a full collapse to disuade the public from entering the building. But also the TV people may not have known it was a partial collapse. Those in the studio can only pass on what they hear from those on the spot see and hear.

[Zingari]

Just mucking about and letting my imagination run wild.

I think its reasonable to predict an unstable is going to collapse. The emergancy services werte keeping people from going near. What was reported may have been a partial collapse to disuade the public from entering the building.

No problem with that a bit of humour never hurts

But the firemen are predicting with the utmost certainty about something that has “never” happened before .

All the other buildings were damaged but no-one can be heard saying that any of those are definitely coming down.

They can be quite clearly heard to say " that building is coming down " , just watch the video , it's there i promise.

[Rincewind]

No problem with that a bit of humour never hurts

But the firemen are predicting with the utmost certainty about something that has “never” happened before .

All the other buildings were damaged but no-one can be heard saying that any of those are definitely coming down.

They can be quite clearly heard to say " that building is coming down " , just watch the video , it's there i promise.

did any of the others come down?

[Zingari]

did any of the others come down?

they had to be demolished during the clear up

even building 6 which stood between 1 and 7 ( so oviously was much worse) had to be pulled down and did not globally collapse

[shen]

They cannot have suspected collapse was due to fire , as this had never happened before, they must have known or been told something else.

What would be the motive of that? I think miscommunication is far far likelier here than any conspiring message. Besides, how can you hold emergency staff responsible for thinking it would come down (if that has indeed not been misinterpreted in the aftermath) when, 1) they just saw the towers come down and 2) they could not have known the extent of the damage done to the internal structure of WTC 7 (nor would they necessarily have the expertise to know)?

[Rincewind]

What size were the other buildings?

What design were the other buildings?

Where was the most damage done to them?

Were they on the flight path of the aircraft?

What was the highest floor affected by damage?

[Zingari]

What would be the motive of that? I think miscommunication is far far likelier here than any conspiring message. Besides, how can you hold emergency staff responsible for thinking it would come down (if that has indeed not been misinterpreted in the aftermath) when, 1) they just saw the towers come down and 2) they could not have known the extent of the damage done to the internal structure of WTC 7 (nor would they necessarily have the expertise to know)?

Good point of course, and I'm not trying to say that emergency crews were in any way involved in the demolition , but they can quite clearly be seen and heard stating with utmost certainty , " that building IS coming down " not in any way an ambiguous "may be coming down"

This was reported as being 4 hours or so before it did ( half way through the supposed fire damage that was given as the cause of collapse )and i don't believe anyone could have predicted that wtc7 was definitely going to collapse .

No shen , it really does not add up that the only building predicted to go down was the one that did , and given it was the first time in history that such an event had occured , it seems suspicious , ( but again i'm definitely not suspicious of the crews)

Someone must have informed them of the imminent collapse and of course they

( the emergency crews) would have no reason to be suspicious of information given to them from above . ( probably OEM office ?)

But who gave them this information ?, and how did they know ?

edit;

i don't want to speculate on any motives because i don't know

[marko]

Good point of course, and I'm not trying to say that emergency crews were in any way involved in the demolition , but they can quite clearly be seen and heard stating with utmost certainty , " that building IS coming down " not in any way an ambiguous "may be coming down"

This was reported as being 4 hours or so before it did ( half way through the supposed fire damage that was given as the cause of collapse )and i don't believe anyone could have predicted that wtc7 was definitely going to collapse .

No shen , it really does not add up that the only building predicted to go down was the one that did , and given it was the first time in history that such an event had occured , it seems suspicious , ( but again i'm definitely not suspicious of the crews)

Someone must have informed them of the imminent collapse and of course they

( the emergency crews) would have no reason to be suspicious of information given to them from above . ( probably OEM office ?)

But who gave them this information ?, and how did they know ?

Blimey, the number of people involved in the planning and execution of this controlled demolition is getting bigger every time I read the thread.

The number of people you seem to be suggesting are directly involved is staggering.

[Zingari]

Blimey, the number of people involved in the planning and execution of this controlled demolition is getting bigger every time I read the thread.

The number of people you seem to be suggesting are directly involved is staggering.

I don't have to say the word "compartmentalization" again do I ?

Do I have to repeat that tens of thousands of people were involved in the Manhattan project but only a handful knew they were making an atom bomb ?

I guess I do

[marko]

I don't have to say the word "compartmentalization" again do I ?

Do I have to repeat that tens of thousands of people were involved in the Manhattan project but only a handful knew they were making an atom bomb ?

I guess I do

No, you don't, but what I find difficult is how you blindly believe it was a controlled demolition when you've not put forward one credible explanation as to how it was achieved.

Those who support the theory of a controlled are extremely quick to dismiss the official report for a lack of hard, indisputable evidence, yet the very same people are thrusting forward the controlled demolition theory without a plausible method as to how it was achieved. I'm afraid that just doesn't wash with me.

If the controlled demolition theory is to have any credibility, there needs to be a logical, rational and believable argument put forward.

[Zingari]

No, you don't, but what I find difficult is how you blindly believe it was a controlled demolition when you've not put forward one credible explanation as to how it was achieved.

Those who support the theory of a controlled are extremely quick to dismiss the official report for a lack of hard, indisputable evidence, yet the very same people are thrusting forward the controlled demolition theory without a plausible method as to how it was achieved. I'm afraid that just doesn't wash with me.

If the controlled demolition theory is to have any credibility, there needs to be a logical, rational and believable argument put forward.

Yes marko , but if i start putting forward explanations , then I am by definition involving myself in conspiracy theory , and the fact is I don't know how it was pulled off . I really really don't know , but the official line is not convincing to me or a growing number of others .

eg

I've watched many magicians pull off amazing feats of deception such as sawing women in half , but just because i can't explain how it was done does not mean i have to believe that the woman was actually cut in half .

Being unable to explain how something was done does not mean that i have to accept any explanation that does not fit the known facts or visual evidence ( especially ones with a low probability of occurrence )

What really surprises me is not that people are not convinced by anything I say or even that by anything large groups of professional structural engineers and architects are saying .

What really surprise me is the lack of any real suspicion by so many people considering what the US government is capable of, and given its history of mass deception

edit;

it's always good that you join in though marko , and shen of course , as at least I can understand you and where you're coming from

ps if you or anyone else want alternative explanations as to how it could have been achieved , there is no shortage of dvd films and literature with varying degrees of credibility and scholarly input .

i would recommend "new pearl harbour" a book by david ray griffen as a good starter , but there are so many that it would be impossible to get through them all

[Rincewind]

Just saw a programmed advertised for the history channel on sunday 11 sept. A documentary then a film.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

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.

Flippant thinking. 0 out of 10. :frusty:

[shen]

Good point of course, and I'm not trying to say that emergency crews were in any way involved in the demolition , but they can quite clearly be seen and heard stating with utmost certainty , " that building IS coming down " not in any way an ambiguous "may be coming down"

This was reported as being 4 hours or so before it did ( half way through the supposed fire damage that was given as the cause of collapse )and i don't believe anyone could have predicted that wtc7 was definitely going to collapse .

No shen , it really does not add up that the only building predicted to go down was the one that did , and given it was the first time in history that such an event had occured , it seems suspicious , ( but again i'm definitely not suspicious of the crews)

Someone must have informed them of the imminent collapse and of course they

( the emergency crews) would have no reason to be suspicious of information given to them from above . ( probably OEM office ?)

But who gave them this information ?, and how did they know ?

edit;

i don't want to speculate on any motives because i don't know

In an emergency situation, you don't dither and hesitate. When you're going to evacuate an area in a hurry, you're not going to say "it could blow" and have to potentially face all kinds of questions. If the staff heard from others or superiors that it was going to blow, the motive could well have been the same, ESPECIALLY when the towers had just collapsed. That it was reported to have been said/heard four hours prior to collapse should only serve to strengthen that point of view. Why should they have heard it/informed others of it so long in advance? The staff would not necessarily have known that fire couldn't cause a building to collapse, so linking these together is a non-starter.

The only half-plausible somewhat sinister scenario in that case, that I can imagine, is that the owners of the building, or someone with detailed knowledge of the building, knew in advance that the structure was sub-standard and weak and then informed staff to take appropriate evacuation measures.