Why Demolish WTC7 at 5:20 pm?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Why Demolish WTC7 at 5:20 pm?; And Why an Obvious CD?..from Old LC
Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 06:44 PM (1,351 Views)
Miragememories	Jan 16 2008, 06:44 PM Post #1
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	One question that gets asked alot by skeptics, is why did they want to destroy WTC7, and if WTC7 was a controlled demolition, why did the perps plan it for 5:20 p.m., almost 7 hours after the collapse of WTC1? Obviously without the testimony of someone involved, we can only add speculation to what actually unfolded behind the scenes on 9/11. Dealing with motive for destroying WTC7 first, we don't know and can only make an educated guess. A list of reasons that have been offered would include these; insurance money major theft complete destruction of evidence of 'command and control' of twin towers strikes as the 3rd largest building in the WTC complex to collapse, additional shock & awe destruction of the SEC investigation files New York Post, Wednesday, Sept.12, 2001 Q Why did they do such an obvious controlled demolition if all the destruction was supposed to look like the natural result of the aircraft attacks? A Because they hadn't planned on anyone seeing the collapse! The best answer I've heard proposed, is that it was a major screwup. They never planned to trigger the job at 5:20 p.m! This scenario has it that the collapse of WTC7 was planned to occur under the debris cloud from the falling WTC1 and be blamed on the WTC1 collapse. Hidden by that massive debris cloud, a controlled demolition of WTC7 would be well masked while guaranteeing the total destruction of WTC7 and it's contents..unlike a topple which would produce far less predictable results. Something went wrong and they failed to trigger the demolition in time with the WTC1 collapse. That obviously presented two problems. They had to finish the job (CD WTC7) and they had to have some kind of explanation to account for it's collapse. Once they corrected the technical glitch with the CD setup, they allowed time for the debris damage and fires to build a case for the re-planned collapse. Q Back to the question, why did they wait until 5:20 p.m.? A Faced with a new countdown to the demolition, It would have raised more immediate questions if they hadn't waited? Let it burn unfought for several hours and establish a probable cause, even if a weak one for it's collapse. Thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media very few people ever noted the collapse of WTC7. Thanks to the Internet it came to world attention. Q Why not wait until after dark when the 'telltale' symmetry and speed of the controlled demolition of WTC7 would not be visible? A The simple answer is, it was a salvage job, they never planned to do the job after WTC1 collapsed. Another reason was that on Sept.11, 2001, the sun set in New York City at 6:11 p.m. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php As the sun began to set the lack of flames behind the veil of smoke on the south face would become too apparent. The 'believed to be' towering inferno would gradually become a darkened 47-story empty tower with possibly a few flames licking out of the odd window here and there. The "emperor's new clothes" would be revealed and the total collapse of a building with such limited visible fire would have made even the most corrupt engineer visibly squirm in any attempt to suggest natural causes. So on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m., we all watched, and they "pulled it." "The debris generated by the collapse of WTC 7 spread mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south... The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion." - FEMA (05/02) MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Jan 16 2008, 06:45 PM Post #2
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	blackcat,Jan 12 2008 04:37 AM The plane that went down in Shanksville was supposed to hit wtc7. Something went wrong eg it was shot down. Well just like my explanation, the Shankesville plane supposedly destined to hit WTC7, is another theory. I haven't adopted it as the best theory because it seems weaker and more complicated overall than the one I proposed. Not that it can't be valid. The two points about the Shankesville theory that bother me the most are the fact that WTC7 was not as easy a target as the twin towers (and pilots have testified that the twin towers were not easy either) and that WTC7 was clearly wired for a classic, from the bottom, controlled demolition. If the intent had been to hit it with an aircraft, one would assume a similar style of planned collapse to what was observed with WTC 1 & 2. There's also the speculation that WTC7, because of it's great twin tower sightlines, as well as it's more controversial tenants, was being used as a base for 'command and control' of the attacks and demolition control of the twin towers. If this was true, any planned aircraft attack on WTC7 would require too much idle time in the air for the attacking aircraft. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Jan 16 2008, 06:46 PM Post #3
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	e^n,Jan 12 2008 09:54 AM MM, there's a couple of things in your post that you get wrong that I want to correct and a few questions I have. You are entitled to correct my factual errors only. You may have gained a greater respect for science in your later schooling (as you indicated in another post), but you have a ways to go before you learn to contain your arrogance. MM Let it burn unfought for several hours and establish a probable cause, even if a weak one for it's collapse. e^n,Jan 12 2008 09:54 AM Firefighters at the scene determined the building was going to collapse several hours before collapse. If this is such a weak probable cause, why did it convince firefighters with training and experience? As you well know, this is old ground that has been covered many times. Based on the numerous quotes taken from the fire fighters, the majority repeated a probable collapse opinion based on what they were told by senior NYFD personnel. No person on the scene, prior to 9/11 had ever heard of, or experienced one, let alone three, modern concrete and steel highrise buildings performing complete, high speed collapses as an end result of fire. Even if we accepted the validity of their collapse expectation, not a single "trained and experienced" firefighter expressed a belief that all of the city block area, 47-story WTC7, standing almost 7 hours after being hit by WTC1 debris and containing unfought fires, would within the space of approximately 14 seconds be lying roughly in it's own footprint. MM So on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m., we all watched, and they "pulled it." e^n,Jan 12 2008 09:54 AM It has been well established (apparently not with you!) that 'pull it' doesn't mean 'destroy with explosives'. No quote has ever been sourced to indicate this and several calls to controlled demolition experts have resulted in them describing 'pulling' as actually physically pulling a building over with cabling. Larry Silverstein also says he was talking to the Fire Department, that they made the decision and again Daniel Nigro gave the order to evacuate and he says he did not consult Silverstein about this. Apparently, you have no sense of humor. I never mentioned Silverstein in my post, even though I paraphrased words he used. I suspected people like yourself would immediately leap on my expression and use it as a means to open up the old Silverstein "pull-it" controversy. Too funny. I have no wish to re-open that discussion in this thread and I never sourced him as the basis for that comment. So get over it. MM Hidden by that massive debris cloud, a controlled demolition of WTC7 would be well masked while guaranteeing the total destruction of WTC7 and it's contents..unlike a topple which would produce far less predictable results. e^n,Jan 12 2008 09:54 AM There has actually been a reasonable amount of data recovery from the ruins of WTC7. I have seen various quotes from companies who have recovered data from hard drives found in the rubble. Wouldn't a better way to destroy SEC files simply be to set a series of intense fires where they were stored? Perhaps remove them from filing cabinets first? Hard drives have a very low chance of surviving a fire, CDs are plastic and will be destroyed immediately, so will paper. Why would they destroy a building just to destroy a few files? Source with some substance please? I could just as easily say; "I have seen various quotes from companies who say they were involved in rigging WTC7 for controlled demolition". The total collapse of WTC7 doesn't preclude the idea that valuable data and evidence were not deliberated destroyed prior to the event. The collapse not only was extremely destructive but it did an excellent job of eliminating evidence of any previous nefarious activity withing WTC7. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Jan 16 2008, 06:47 PM Post #4
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	MM As you well know, this is old ground that has been covered many times. Based on the numerous quotes taken from the fire fighters, the majority repeated a probable collapse opinion based on what they were told by senior NYFD personnel. e^n,Jan 14 2008 08:41 AM Yes, that person is Daniel Nigro: http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro Do you believe him to have lied or be 'in on it'? My point is that one opinion from a superior easily becomes multiplied into the appearance of many opinions once adopted by subordinates. I believe either WTC 5 or 6 was also stated as "expected to collapse" that day, but neither of them did. Was he lying? Any person in such an a influential position (fire chief), is a potential target for those who might wish to propagate a particular belief. If Guiliani or someone of equal importance spoke to him. If they voiced concerns about how terrible it would be if another group of firefighters tragically lost their lives while fighting the WTC7 fires, and "how bad it would be for the city", I don't think it would be too surprising if he cooperated rather facing the possible risk to his men and his career. He couldn't just tell his brave firefighters to quit because he didn't want them to risk getting hurt. He needed to give them a reason they could accept ..and he did. Silverstein for one, is on the record as saying he pre-authorized stopping any further attempts to fight the WTC7 fires. MM No person on the scene, prior to 9/11 had ever heard of, or experienced one, let alone three, modern concrete and steel highrise buildings performing complete, high speed collapses as an end result of fire. e^n,Jan 14 2008 08:41 AM This is correct. MM Even if we accepted the validity of their collapse expectation, not a single "trained and experienced" firefighter expressed a belief that all of the city block area, 47-story WTC7, standing almost 7 hours after being hit by WTC1 debris and containing unfought fires, would within the space of approximately 14 seconds be lying roughly in it's own footprint. e^n,Jan 14 2008 08:41 AM This is simply moving the goalposts. Of course nobody predicted the collapse to that accuracy, what we do know is that they most certainly predicted collapse. Now you can equivocate all you like about how far you'd like to move goalposts but demanding an ever greater level of evidence is a well known fallacy. Moving the goalposts? NO. I'm not saying I accept their "collapse expectation". I'm just saying that even if you did accept it, it still doesn't fit what actually occurred or provides even an hint that they were expecting what actually occurred. MM I never mentioned Silverstein in my post, even though I paraphrased words he used. I suspected people like yourself would immediately leap on my expression and use it as a means to open up the old Silverstein "pull-it" controversy. Too funny. I have no wish to re-open that discussion in this thread and I never sourced him as the basis for that comment. So get over it. e^n,Jan 14 2008 08:41 AM There is no other source MM, you and I both know what you meant by that and I love how you respond to being called on adding a false claim to your post with "get over it". You yourself admit you paraphrased his words even though there's absolutely no evidence his words implicate anyone. There is no other source? I am the source. It was my expression. Silverstein was not quoted and just because I used 2 words that he happened to make infamous, doesn't mean I can't choose them as well. "pull-it" has entered into the 9/11 lexicon whether you like it or not. It had the desired effect. It produced the typical 'kneejerk' response evidenced in your reply. Too funny. MM Source with some substance please? I could just as easily say; "I have seen various quotes from companies who say they were involved in rigging WTC7 for controlled demolition". e^n,Jan 14 2008 08:41 AM You could, but then you would be lying. I was on a mobile connection at the time as you know and it was pretty hard to search. Even now I can only find talk from a j911s paper as it seems the company involved (at least the one mentioned in the paper) has changed its homepage: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...eRecoveries.pdf The point is, I didn't lie, and you can't be expected to have your vague remembrances accepted as rebuttal. I read through that PDF you provided regarding hard drive recoveries. It amounts to little more than saying attempts were made by a German company to recover data relating to possible fraudulent financial transactions occurring on 9/11, and refers only to the WTC Twin Towers. There is no reference made to WTC7. There is no mention of anything relating to the SEC Investigation, and there isn't even any mention of whether or not they had success recovering a single byte of data. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sap-guy	Jan 19 2008, 05:37 PM Post #5
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Jan 16 2008, 06:44 PM --- Because they hadn't planned on anyone seeing the collapse! The best answer I've heard proposed, is that it was a major screwup. They never planned to trigger the job at 5:20 p.m! This scenario has it that the collapse of WTC7 was planned to occur under the debris cloud from the falling WTC1 and be blamed on the WTC1 collapse. --- This would require WTC1 to hit WTC7 pretty hard, and visibly so. Could this be predicted? Hundreds of cameras and millions of eyes would by now be tuned to the WTC1 collapse, and anything resembling the actual collapse of WTC1 would clearly not bring down WTC7. So, the cover would be blown. Sounds like the "perps" would be creating themselves a massive hostage to fortune, IMO. In other words, as plans go it's a stinkeroonee. I've never been able to see a plausible reason to CD WTC7 anyway. Insurance doesn't add up (they lost a small amount on WTC7 in the end), it's a cr#p way to destroy documentary or digital evidence (of whatever). Just doesn't make sense.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Miragememories	Jan 20 2008, 10:54 AM Post #6
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Miragememories Jan 16 2008 07:44 PM Because they hadn't planned on anyone seeing the collapse! The best answer I've heard proposed, is that it was a major screwup. They never planned to trigger the job at 5:20 p.m! This scenario has it that the collapse of WTC7 was planned to occur under the debris cloud from the falling WTC1 and be blamed on the WTC1 collapse. sap-guy Yesterday 6:37 PM This would require WTC1 to hit WTC7 pretty hard, and visibly so. Could this be predicted? Hundreds of cameras and millions of eyes would by now be tuned to the WTC1 collapse, and anything resembling the actual collapse of WTC1 would clearly not bring down WTC7. So, the cover would be blown. Sounds like the "perps" would be creating themselves a massive hostage to fortune, IMO. In other words, as plans go it's a stinkeroonee. NO. This would require only that WTC1 (North Tower) be expected to cloud the view of WTC7 in debris and dust and give the appearance of significantly impacting it. If people were expected to believe that airplane impacts and fire were enough to collapse both of the twin towers, why would they not be expected to believe that the collapse of WTC1 would not account for the collapse of the next tallest WTC Complex building? As I see it, this plan was just as 'believable' as the one for bringing down WTC 1 & 2. The planners had this view; And they had this result; sap-guy Yesterday 6:37 PM I've never been able to see a plausible reason to CD WTC7 anyway. Insurance doesn't add up (they lost a small amount on WTC7 in the end), it's a cr#p way to destroy documentary or digital evidence (of whatever). Just doesn't make sense. So much skeptic incredulity stems from the inability to imagine or accept a motive. The best reason given is; Regarding the effectiveness of demolishing WTC7 as a means of destroying records, you are overlooking the strong likelihood that the destruction may have masked record removal/destruction that had already taken place. The collapse was an effective means of destroying 'evidence of illegal activities'. To date I have read nothing that suggest any of this data was retrieved from the ruins. It's also been suggested that WTC7 was a money losing property that would have cost a fortune to re-develop, the insurance money significantly reduced this cost and made the new WTC7 a much more viable proposition. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


illeagalhunter	Feb 7 2008, 03:54 PM Post #7
Posts: 175 Group: Members Member #81 Joined: 01/16/08	Because there would be evidence of the whole feckin thing , to came back & bite them in the ass
Posts: 175 Group: Members Member #81 Joined: 01/16/08


RKOwens4	Mar 7 2008, 11:06 PM Post #8
Posts: 66 Group: Skeptics Member #260 Joined: 02/02/08	Quote: Because they hadn't planned on anyone seeing the collapse! The best answer I've heard proposed, is that it was a major screwup. They never planned to trigger the job at 5:20 p.m! So some hypercompetent agency was able to get thousands upon thousands of pounds of explosives past WTC security, wire it up without any office workers noticing, and was able to keep all of this secret, but when it came to "pushing the button" at 10:28, someone just forgot? Was he in the restroom? Quote: Thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media very few people ever noted the collapse of WTC7. Thanks to the Internet it came to world attention. I don't know what you were watching on 9/11 but I watched the collapse of WTC7 live on TV. I didn't tune in until after both towers fell, but I clearly remember anchors on every channel saying the building was on fire and in danger of collapse, which is why I stayed tuned in. Everyone was EXPECTING it to collapse. If the "conspirators" didn't want many people to know about it, then why (as many claim) did they tell the media it was about to collapse? After it did collapse, it wasn't a shock at all, and the focus returned to the other more major events. You may have only learned of WTC7's collapse on the internet, but many people watched it live and understood how serious the fires were, and saw nothing suspicious at all about it.
Posts: 66 Group: Skeptics Member #260 Joined: 02/02/08


Bitterman	Mar 8 2008, 12:34 AM Post #9
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	It doesn't take THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of pounds of explosives to demo a building. We already know this. Like you would need a pound of explosives to blow a pound of concrete up eh? That is the whole point of explosives. To use something that can utterly destroy concrete and steel in a fraction of a second is the point of demolition explosives. The whole, "oh they would to have had TEAMS and TEAMS of guys to do all of the prep work to make it happen? Like hundreds of guys? yeah, I'm sure if I asked controlled demolition Inc. they would employ HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of workers to move explosives into a building to demo it in a day? Uh huh. Go tell another one. That argument has been done to death. That and you're "OK" with a building falling straight in on itself due to "fire" alone? Let me ask you: What the hell is a company like Controlled Demolition Inc. in business for if all you need to do is create a company called Controlled Fire Inc. where all you do is set a 3-4 floor fire in a building and have it collapse in on itself???? You're "OK" with having fire drop a building.....a concrete and steel reinforced building drop due to fire? I watched news on TV one night where a building in my city caught fire and did nothing but burn and burn and didn't collapse in on itself. Do you feel safe going to work in a high rise building "knowing" that it could collapse in on itself just because a fire started??? Ridiculous.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Miragememories	Mar 8 2008, 09:55 AM Post #10
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	RKOwens4 Mar 7 2008, 11:06 PM Miragememories Because they hadn't planned on anyone seeing the collapse! The best answer I've heard proposed, is that it was a major screwup. They never planned to trigger the job at 5:20 p.m! RKOwens4 So some hypercompetent agency was able to get thousands upon thousands of pounds of explosives past WTC security, wire it up without any office workers noticing, and was able to keep all of this secret, but when it came to "pushing the button" at 10:28, someone just forgot? Was he in the restroom? Myth, spin, conjecture, self-serving bullsht! Unless you are a foremost expert on the subject of controlled demolitions RKOwens4*, you don't know what you are talking about. NIST postulates the wild claim that a single core column failure could have achieved the WTC 7 collapse. Obviously NIST doesn't buy into your ridiculous claim of "thousands and thousands of explosives", unless maybe you think they were using fire crackers? WTC 7 was evidently rigged for demolition prior to 9/11. It could have been, and likely was, a gradual process spread out over a period of time. The operation could easily have been performed under the guise of office renovations and elevator servicing. If the perps were as well supported as many believe, security clearances should not have been a major issue. I have seen very few highrise office buildings, especially prior to 9/11, that were difficult to roam. You pretty much just had to look like you belonged there. Miragememories Thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media very few people ever noted the collapse of WTC7. Thanks to the Internet it came to world attention. RKOwens4 I don't know what you were watching on 9/11 but I watched the collapse of WTC7 live on TV. I didn't tune in until after both towers fell, but I clearly remember anchors on every channel saying the building was on fire and in danger of collapse, which is why I stayed tuned in. Everyone was EXPECTING it to collapse. If the "conspirators" didn't want many people to know about it, then why (as many claim) did they tell the media it was about to collapse? After it did collapse, it wasn't a shock at all, and the focus returned to the other more major events. You may have only learned of WTC7's collapse on the internet, but many people watched it live and understood how serious the fires were, and saw nothing suspicious at all about it. I was referring to post 9/11. In the years following that day, if you talked to people about 9/11, they easily recalled the collapses of the Twin Towers. Mention WTC 7 to them and you usually got a blank stare, even if you described the whole event as it was shown by the TV networks that day. Everyone was not expecting it to collapse. Many were just propagating the word that was put out by someone high up in the chain of command that "WTC 7 was going to collapse". I saw no TV network's hired analysts stating a belief that WTC 7 was at risk of failure. They merely passed along the rumour without citing any individual expert source. It was a 'planted' story. Even Dan Rather, as we all know by now, commented on the amazing similarity that WTC7's collapse had to that of a controlled demolition. The collapse was announced in advance because it could no longer be hidden from the public eye. It appears that the original plan was for it to be 'collapsed' under the collapse of WTC 1 (North Tower) but apparently the triggering of that detonation failed and had to be corrected. With the mask of WTC1 no longer available, the demolition of WTC 7 could not be hidden. It was necessary to plant the belief that it was so debris-damaged and fire ridden, that's it's collapse was inevitable. It had to occur before sunset (6:11 p.m.) because encroaching darkness would have revealed how little fire existed in the areas of the lower floor collapse zone. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sap-guy	Mar 9 2008, 04:43 PM Post #11
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Mar 8 2008, 09:55 AM The collapse was announced in advance because it could no longer be hidden from the public eye. It appears that the original plan was for it to be 'collapsed' under the collapse of WTC 1 (North Tower) but apparently the triggering of that detonation failed and had to be corrected. With the mask of WTC1 no longer available, the demolition of WTC 7 could not be hidden. It was necessary to plant the belief that it was so debris-damaged and fire ridden, that's it's collapse was inevitable. It had to occur before sunset (6:11 p.m.) because encroaching darkness would have revealed how little fire existed in the areas of the lower floor collapse zone. MM You have given no reason for "announcing" the collapse. Why not just let it fall, especially as this was plan B and it should have "fallen" earlier. Why draw attention to it with an "announcement"? "It appears that the original plan was for it to be 'collapsed' under the collapse of WTC 1" .. ?? Evidence please. It had to occur before sunset? Why not at 2 p.m. then? MM you are posting gibberish.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Miragememories	Mar 9 2008, 05:39 PM Post #12
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sap-guy Mar 9 2008, 04:43 PM Miragememories Mar 8 2008, 09:55 AM The collapse was announced in advance because it could no longer be hidden from the public eye. It appears that the original plan was for it to be 'collapsed' under the collapse of WTC 1 (North Tower) but apparently the triggering of that detonation failed and had to be corrected. With the mask of WTC1 no longer available, the demolition of WTC 7 could not be hidden. It was necessary to plant the belief that it was so debris-damaged and fire ridden, that's it's collapse was inevitable. It had to occur before sunset (6:11 p.m.) because encroaching darkness would have revealed how little fire existed in the areas of the lower floor collapse zone. MM You have given no reason for "announcing" the collapse. Why not just let it fall, especially as this was plan B and it should have "fallen" earlier. Why draw attention to it with an "announcement"? "It appears that the original plan was for it to be 'collapsed' under the collapse of WTC 1" .. ?? Evidence please. It had to occur before sunset? Why not at 2 p.m. then? MM you are posting gibberish. I'd rather post gibberish than the bullshit that sustains you sap-guy. Why not 2 p.m.? Who knows how long it took to correct the technical problem? Why an announcement? Because it would be an unexpected SURPRISE otherwise. It made no sense for WTC 7 to collapse, especially the way it did. By announcing it and declaring it an expectation, they lent credibility to the event. In addition, they probably felt the longer they left it the less likely there would be much media coverage. Also a long delay supported the argument that the fires over time were able to cripple the core columns. Your responses are so lame sap-guy, I can only believe you are in league with those responsible for what happened. People like you, sap-guy, are absolutely nauseating! MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sevon	Mar 10 2008, 10:00 AM Post #13
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08	Random thought I had.... If they wanted to blame WTC7's collapse on fires...and if the fires weren't severe enough to bring it down, why not just add some fuel to the fires until they were severe enough to bring it down?
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08


Miragememories	Mar 10 2008, 10:39 AM Post #14
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sevon Mar 10 2008, 10:00 AM Random thought I had.... If they wanted to blame WTC7's collapse on fires...and if the fires weren't severe enough to bring it down, why not just add some fuel to the fires until they were severe enough to bring it down? Possibly, fuel was added to the fires prior to the initiated collapse. We've already seen apparent photo evidence that shows fires in a few lower floor windows on the north face of WTC 7, prior to the collapse of either of the WTC Twin Towers. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/78529/1/#new Whether or not aiding the fires would have improved the likelihood that they would collapse from the heat of fire, would seem quite doubtful to me. Of course I'm not a believer that fire was a factor in the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers either. Heat, to my knowledge, has never been considered a viable means of creating a controlled demolition. One has to assume that one of the chief reasons is that it's so difficult to provide simultaneous controlled high temperatures (outside of explosives), to the critical core columns. For such a freak occurrence to happen in a random fire situation, would seem to be astronomically unlikely. MM Edited by Miragememories, Mar 10 2008, 10:46 AM.
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sevon	Mar 10 2008, 02:30 PM Post #15
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08	Miragememories Mar 10 2008, 10:39 AM Of course I'm not a believer that fire was a factor in the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers either. Heat, to my knowledge, has never been considered a viable means of creating a controlled demolition. I agree with your second statement. But are you saying you don't think fire was even a factor in the collapses of the WTC towers? I don't know how else the bowing of the exterior columns could be explained....explosives don't do that.
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08


Miragememories	Mar 10 2008, 04:55 PM Post #16
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sevon Mar 10 2008, 02:30 PM Miragememories Mar 10 2008, 10:39 AM Of course I'm not a believer that fire was a factor in the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers either. Heat, to my knowledge, has never been considered a viable means of creating a controlled demolition. sevon I agree with your second statement. But are you saying you don't think fire was even a factor in the collapses of the WTC towers? I don't know how else the bowing of the exterior columns could be explained....explosives don't do that. I don't want to go off topic by discussing WTC 1 & WTC 2 specifcally in the WTC 7 subforum. To clarify my statement though, I will say that I don't believe the fires in the WTC Twin Towers were in any way responsible for the collapse initiation that occurred there. If you have an interst in discussing this further, in the appropriate subforum, and in a 'civil' manner, I'm quite prepared to further share my reasons and weigh your objections. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sap-guy	Mar 11 2008, 11:28 AM Post #17
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Mar 9 2008, 05:39 PM Your responses are so lame sap-guy, I can only believe you are in league with those responsible for what happened. Well, that comes as a surprise to me. Today I pruned some olive trees, dug some soil, planted some garlic and leeks, and whitewashed an outhouse here where I live in Greece. Maybe I'm doing these things in retirement on my nefarious earnings from the NWO? Oh yeah, and parking the black helicopter is a total b#tch in a Greek hillside village. Get a grip on your paranoia, MM, before it drags you under.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Miragememories	Mar 11 2008, 12:08 PM Post #18
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sap-guy Mar 11 2008, 11:28 AM Miragememories Mar 9 2008, 05:39 PM Your responses are so lame sap-guy, I can only believe you are in league with those responsible for what happened. Well, that comes as a surprise to me. Today I pruned some olive trees, dug some soil, planted some garlic and leeks, and whitewashed an outhouse here where I live in Greece. Maybe I'm doing these things in retirement on my nefarious earnings from the NWO? Oh yeah, and parking the black helicopter is a total b#tch in a Greek hillside village. Get a grip on your paranoia, MM, before it drags you under. I would suggest you stick with your gardening and stay out of forum discussions when you have nothing constructive to offer but your own highly prejudiced opinions. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sap-guy	Mar 11 2008, 04:53 PM Post #19
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Mar 11 2008, 12:08 PM I would suggest you stick with your gardening and stay out of forum discussions when you have nothing constructive to offer but your own highly prejudiced opinions. MM So, are you retracting your claim that I'm "in league with those responsible for what happened." ? That would be much appreciated, as I have no connections with Al Q'aida Edited by sap-guy, Mar 11 2008, 04:55 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Miragememories	Mar 15 2008, 10:14 AM Post #20
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sap-guy Mar 11 2008, 04:53 PM Miragememories Mar 11 2008, 12:08 PM I would suggest you stick with your gardening and stay out of forum discussions when you have nothing constructive to offer but your own highly prejudiced opinions. MM sap-guy So, are you retracting your claim that I'm "in league with those responsible for what happened." ? That would be much appreciated, as I have no connections with Al Q'aida Anyone who acts in a manner which is to the benefit of those guilty of the 9/11 crimes is "acting in league with those responsible." I've yet to see any convincing evidence that Al Qaeda was the sole organization behind 9/11. Al Qaeda appears to be nothing but a convenient target organization with no ability to credibly accept or deny all the terrorists activities that the U.S. propaganda machine blames them for. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


einsteen	Mar 25 2008, 07:38 AM Post #21
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	If we had all answers we didn't have to ask these questions. But your attempt is no bad one I think MM. Personally I'm more interested in the pure physics of the process but things like this are also very interesting. But the question whether it was a CD or not is absolutely not solved by saying "we can't find a motive". The following example is not a good analogy because the collapse destroyed possible evidence but isn't that the same as saying (when the police finds a dead body of a good honest person): why would someone kill him ? I can't find a reason therefore I guess it is an accident or natural dead.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Mar 25 2008, 08:05 AM Post #22
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	einsteen Mar 25 2008, 07:38 AM If we had all answers we didn't have to ask these questions. But your attempt is no bad one I think MM. Personally I'm more interested in the pure physics of the process but things like this are also very interesting. But the question whether it was a CD or not is absolutely not solved by saying "we can't find a motive". The following example is not a good analogy because the collapse destroyed possible evidence but isn't that the same as saying (when the police finds a dead body of a good honest person): why would someone kill him ? I can't find a reason therefore I guess it is an accident or natural dead. I think you raise a very good point Einsteen. Incredulity seems to underly most of the entrenched views of the Official Story believers. They cannot accept any possibility that effectively destroys a belief that they have cherished all their lives. Once rejected, any explanation that offers any credibility at all of preserving the myth that the U.S. does not do bad things, especially to it's own citizens, will be lovingly embraced. We believe what we want to believe. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


einsteen	Mar 25 2008, 09:21 AM Post #23
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	Personally I don't like saying "inside job" but on the other hand if we look at the history of men it is one big slaughterfest, civilization is a very thin shell. The evil Stalin once said something like the death of a man is a tragedy, but the death of millions is only statistics. Well if they kill 90,000 innocent people elsewhere including their own soldiers what do those 3,000 matter.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Mar 25 2008, 11:23 AM Post #24
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	einsteen Mar 25 2008, 09:21 AM Personally I don't like saying "inside job" but on the other hand if we look at the history of men it is one big slaughterfest, civilization is a very thin shell. The evil Stalin once said something like the death of a man is a tragedy, but the death of millions is only statistics. Well if they kill 90,000 innocent people elsewhere including their own soldiers what do those 3,000 matter. There are always people who solidly embrace a belief that "the ends justify the means". If those people have almost limitless power. . . MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Popesture	Mar 26 2008, 12:46 PM Post #25
A No-Brainer No-Planer Posts: 28 Group: BANNED! Member #338 Joined: 02/20/08	Wasn't there a lot of gold under WTC 7?



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2