WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[patchbunny]

Whilst painting ping pong balls in my garage, my mind drifted to the CT's varied arguments on how WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolitions. Sorry if this question has been asked before, but I can't understand why it would have been blown up?

The primary argument by the CTs is how "steel frame buildings have never collapsed due to fire alone," which is why the two towers must have been blown up. But if steel frame buildings don't collapse, why are they stating the fire departments ordered WTC 7 "pulled", ie, blwon up? It surely was in no danger of collapse, as it's a steel frame building. So why would it have been necessary to blow it up? What's the motive for its destruction by the NYFD?

--Patch

[Arus808]

because it had offices for several govt agencies, and instead of using "shredders" or highly powerful magnets ( to erase hard drives ), they rather blow up the building to "hide" all the proof/evidence that 911 was planned.

[pomeroo]

Whilst painting ping pong balls in my garage, my mind drifted to the CT's varied arguments on how WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolitions. Sorry if this question has been asked before, but I can't understand why it would have been blown up?

The primary argument by the CTs is how "steel frame buildings have never collapsed due to fire alone," which is why the two towers must have been blown up. But if steel frame buildings don't collapse, why are they stating the fire departments ordered WTC 7 "pulled", ie, blwon up? It surely was in no danger of collapse, as it's a steel frame building. So why would it have been necessary to blow it up? What's the motive for its destruction by the NYFD?

--Patch


I will treat your post as a serious question. You seem to be arguing that there was no motive for anyone to blow up WTC 7. You are completely correct: the fantasists' imaginary conspiracy certainly had no motive to conduct an operation the only conceivable purpose of which was to leave clues for extremely dumb guys who hate America. The FDNY is not in the business of blowing up buildings.

The quotation marks you thoughtfully placed around the word "pulled" hints at the answer. Nobody in the demolition industry--NOBODY--swallows the falsehood invented out of whole cloth by conspiracy liars that "pull it" means "blow up the building." Larry Silverstein was requesting that a contingent of rescue workers be pulled out. He made this request because WTC 7 had been assessed as dangerously unstable and liable to collapse. Your statement that it was "in no danger of collapse" is simply wrong. Firefighters on the scene expected WTC 7 to come down. This minor detail is routinely ignored by the conspiracy liars.

[Horatius]

The real question is, why were you painting ping pong balls?

And were you giving them each an individual look, or were you doing a really boring still-life?

[defaultdotxbe]

i recall a stundie quote (or perhaps predating the stundies) that was essentially "we dont know why WTC7 was imploded, but it was imploded, so they must have had a reason"

[DGM]

The real question is, why were you painting ping pong balls?

And were you giving them each an individual look, or were you doing a really boring still-life?
I was wondering the same thing. Although it gave me a good idea for a cub scout activity tomorrow. Thanks for that.:)

[patchbunny]

I will treat your post as a serious question.
I hope you would. It was a serious question. I can't recall seeing it stated before. Please note I am not a conspiracy theorist. Just wondered about the mysterious motive.

because it had offices for several govt agencies, and instead of using "shredders" or highly powerful magnets ( to erase hard drives ), they rather blow up the building to "hide" all the proof/evidence that 911 was planned.

Which makes me wonder why the CTs think the FDNY would be involved in such a conspiracy, given they lost some 300(?) of their own that day.

Thanks for the answers folks.

--Patch

[patchbunny]

The real question is, why were you painting ping pong balls?

And were you giving them each an individual look, or were you doing a really boring still-life?

As you can tell from my avatar (that is, assuming you've heard of the show) I'm a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Science_Theater_3000). I'm working on my Crow T. Robot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_t_robot) puppet and I'm making his eyes. They're ping pong balls painted a fluorescent yellow, but for some reason the paint is coming out patchwork yellow and orange.

For those who are interested, you can see the work in progress here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v728/patchbunny/IMG_0298.jpg).

--Patch

[patchbunny]

I was wondering the same thing. Although it gave me a good idea for a cub scout activity tomorrow. Thanks for that.:)

I found glow-in-the-dark spray paint at a Orchard Supply Hardware the other day. Or grab the specialist texture spray paint and make granite ping pong balls. It could be a fun project indeed. :)

--Patch

[stateofgrace]

This is a very good question and one that is rarely answered by the cters. It is simply assumed it was blown up because, well because it was. This in itself gives reason to come up with no end of speculation. This speculation ranges from a plane actually being targetted at WTC 7 to a missile being fired at it from a fighter jet.

Of course there are many follow on question from the OP that the cters rarely address, like why on earth did they wait for some six hours and allow it all to be filmed by the gathering worlds media?
or
Why on earth did they simply not blow it up under cover of the cloud dust?
or
Why did the explosives make no sound when they blow it up ?
or
How did they know this building would survive the collapse of the towers?
or
How did they know it would survive the fires for six hours?
or
How did the explosives survive all this ?
or
why did the firefighters clear the area hours before hand?

Basically,why go to all this bother to demolish an empty building and then all the bother of trying to cover it all up ?

The questions go on and on , if one was to really apply oneselfs to it but in ct land it is best to stick to " It looked like a CD , therefore it was" and as for my questions, well thats why a new investigation is needed. :boggled:

[Pardalis]

It always makes me laugh when truthers like mjd, Zensmack or MaGZ push for LIHOP and pretend they are not MIHOP, but still think WTC7 was a controlled demolition...

I mean, "They" had to be involved in the attacks if they wanted to demolish WTC7 inconspicuously. "They" had to know the precise date the attacks would occur and how the planes would hit the towers, and "They" had to know of any problems that would occur that might have delayed the attacks (unless you believe demolition charges can be set in a few hours in a burning building.).

The 9/11 Al qaeda plot and the WTC7 demolition plots are too precise and complicated to be simultaneously be going on without any of the two parties explicitly knowing of one an other.

But try and tell that to the truthers...

[patchbunny]

Basically,why go to all this bother to demolish an empty building and then all the bother of trying to cover it all up ?
Yup. I think few people would have been troubled if the FDNY had stated, "WTC7 is burning out of control and beyond hope. The FDNY has taken horrendous casualties today and we're not risking any more lives. To protect adjacent structures from the spread of the blaze we've asked the government for specialists to bring the building down."

Why a demolition would have needed to be secret is beyond me.

--Patch

[DarkMagician]

because it had offices for several govt agencies, and instead of using "shredders" or highly powerful magnets ( to erase hard drives ), they rather blow up the building to "hide" all the proof/evidence that 911 was planned.

Of course, it didn't occur to them that they could do those things before blowing up the building, as a large bunch of the evidence could easily be repaired.

[Jonnyclueless]

Of course, it didn't occur to them that they could do those things before blowing up the building, as a large bunch of the evidence could easily be repaired.

Clearly they were too stupid to think of such things because we can't be expected to believe they are stupid enough to have ignored intelligence or foreseen such a thing which has never happened before.

[1337m4n]

I believe I have a plausible answer to all of your questions.

When, inevitably, some basement-dweller uncovers evidence from grainy photographs and quotes taken out of context that 9/11 was the work of the NWO, shills like ourselves can dismiss it by saying, "But why demolish WTC7? It's completely pointless and therefore couldn't have been a demolition conspiracy".

:D :D :D

[Alareth]

Which makes me wonder why the CTs think the FDNY would be involved in such a conspiracy, given they lost some 300(?) of their own that day.




The most common answer to that one says that firefighters that died were the ones that wouldn't accept the bribes to stay quiet and had to be eliminated.

There are no depths to low and repugnant for CT's.

[TerryUK]

So why would it have been necessary to blow it up?

--Patch

I think it would make sense that those responsible for planning 9/11 wanted to get maximum effect.
Therefor, they would likely want to flatten the whole WTC...
So, on this assumption, the three main buildings would be targets.
First, the terrorists would crash the planes, one into each of the three buildings. Then later, pre-planted devices would be detonated to make sure all three buildings collapsed.
WTC 7 would have been pre-rigged with some sort of devices to bring it down, as would WTC 1 and WTC 2.
The plane that would have crashed into WTC 7 didn't get there because it crashed (flight 93 ) or never took off ( flight 23? )

What's the motive for its destruction by the NYFD?

Non - the FFNY didn't destroy WTC. Also "pull it" was obviously not referring to any demolition, but rather pull the remaining FF operation.

[Bell]

I've seen claims that 9/11 was an inside job because the Muslims could not have blown op WTC7. Circulair reasoning much?

[OldTigerCub]

The primary argument by the CTs is how "steel frame buildings have never collapsed due to fire alone," which is why the two towers must have been blown up. But if steel frame buildings don't collapse, why are they stating the fire departments ordered WTC 7 "pulled", ie, blwon up? It surely was in no danger of collapse, as it's a steel frame building. So why would it have been necessary to blow it up? What's the motive for its destruction by the NYFD?

--Patch

Since troothers never seem to get the facts straight, they always overlook other collapses of steel frame buildings involved in fires. Overlooking the fears that the FDNY had that Bldg 7 was in danger of collapsing is another convenient omission. A video shot from one angle, while ignoring other video records is the strongest evidence troothers have, so they stick to it and "just ask questions". Of course, if someone brings forth a bunch of det-cord or blasting cap residue...my first guess would be that it was left over from a demolition of LC videos.
Troothers are silly. :p

[T.A.M.]

yes, and the big bad govt just bet everything they had on the HUGE AIRPLANES not wiping out the PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES ON THE IMPACT FLOORS, when the collapse initiated.

JHC here we go again.

TAM

[stateofgrace]

I think it would make sense that those responsible for planning 9/11 wanted to get maximum effect.
Therefor, they would likely want to flatten the whole WTC...
So, on this assumption, the three main buildings would be targets.
First, the terrorists would crash the planes, one into each of the three buildings. Then later, pre-planted devices would be detonated to make sure all three buildings collapsed.
WTC 7 would have been pre-rigged with some sort of devices to bring it down, as would WTC 1 and WTC 2.
The plane that would have crashed into WTC 7 didn't get there because it crashed (flight 93 ) or never took off ( flight 23?)

What you think and what you assume simply reinforces the case against you, but please carry on.

[PhantomWolf]

Whilst painting ping pong balls in my garage, my mind drifted to the CT's varied arguments

I suggest more ventillation in the garage....

[Undesired Walrus]

No ping pong ball in the history of ping pong balls have ever been painted before.

[Alareth]

No ping pong ball in the history of ping pong balls have ever been painted before.


Kermit the frog would disagree with you sir.

[SDC]

I think it would make sense that those responsible for planning 9/11 wanted to get maximum effect.
Therefor, they would likely want to flatten the whole WTC...
So, on this assumption, the three main buildings would be targets.
First, the terrorists would crash the planes, one into each of the three buildings. Then later, pre-planted devices would be detonated to make sure all three buildings collapsed.
WTC 7 would have been pre-rigged with some sort of devices to bring it down, as would WTC 1 and WTC 2.


I have lived in and around NYC for most of my adult life, though I was in the middle of a 5 year professional trip in southeast lower Michigan in 2001.

In any case, I think there is a lot of hindsight in this statement. What I recall, from my pre-2001 days in NYC, was that to most people, the World Trade Center consisted of the twin towers. Not "the three main buildings." I had no clear idea, after 9/11, of what "WTC7" referred to; I think it was commonly referred to as Salomon Brothers. (May be wrong. Forgive me.) So any claim that the plan was to destroy all of the WTC, or even its 3 main buildings, is strictly after-the-fact rationalization. New Yorkers did not think of the whole part of lower Manhattan as "WTC;" we thought of the two towers. And I do not believe that any out-of-towners, as we thought of them, would have thought of the "3 main buildings," either.

[LashL]

There are no depths to low and repugnant for CT's.

You are quite right about that. Here is an example I just stumbled across on the Loose Change Forum by a poster who goes by the wholly inapt name, "CriticalThinker" in a thread about cell phone use on airplanes:

"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"

LOL



After another poster expressed his/her view that the post was offensive, and after a warning by admin IVXX, admonishing "CriticalThinker" "Don't let this or anything like it happen again," the ignoramus could not resist and followed up with this further post/tirade:


I'm so happy to have offended you !

You're name is OFFENSIVE to me!

Everything about you is offensive.
Love to box your eyes out you moron.

"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"

Can you not see that this is FAKE! Who would call their mom up and call themselves by their first and LAST name? WHO? ITS FAKE FAKE FAKE!

UPDATE: Had it been a REAL PHONE call - I suspect it would have been whispered : "Call the FBI now - We're hijacked ...call call call".

Anyone who have the original PHONEY BALOGNI transcript here? Please post for our rememberance. Making fun of FICTICIOUS events is NOT A SIN. SORRY. IT'S FAKE.


It appears that the culprit was suspended for posting the second comment after a warning not to do so, and was further admonished by IVXX, "Next time I see disrespect like this towards a victim or family of a victim it will be an instant ban."

Funny how the Loose Change admins are now reprimanding and banning people for mocking the same victims that Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas mocked so often in the past, and the very denial of Mark Bingham's call to his mother that Loose Change Second Edition promoted.

It's a definite improvement, of course, but I can't help but wonder if it is truly reflective of what they believe, or whether it is merely that they have learned that such repugnant mockery of the victims will cut into their profits and damage the potential popularity of their little video.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15805

[/OT]

[Undesired Walrus]

Kermit the frog would disagree with you sir.

LOLZ! Kermit was a brooklyn dwelling ghetto frog, you honestly think a ragtag group of homoerotic puppets can paint the most sofisticated ping pong balls in the world?

[OldTigerCub]

Kermit the frog would disagree with you sir.

I think Cookie Monster might take exception as well.

[TerryUK]

yes, and the big bad govt just bet everything they had on the HUGE AIRPLANES not wiping out the PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES ON THE IMPACT FLOORS, when the collapse initiated.


That would obviously be something that needed to be considered.

Also, regarding WTC 1 and WTC 2, knowing where the planes would hit - that would also be a problem...

[T.A.M.]

Funny how the Loose Change admins are now reprimanding and banning people for mocking the same victims that Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas mocked so often in the past, and the very denial of Mark Bingham's call to his mother that Loose Change Second Edition promoted.

It's a definite improvement, of course, but I can't help but wonder if it is truly reflective of what they believe, or whether it is merely that they have learned that such repugnant mockery of the victims will cut into their profits and damage the potential popularity of their little video.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15805

[/OT]

I suspect, it is as you have said, a realization that whether they believe the calls to be fake or not, they know it is a point that will bring more derision than praise, and will likely make them look worse in the long run...they are floating back to the "just asking questions" on almost all fronts now, for this very same reason.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

That would obviously be something that needed to be considered.

Also, regarding WTC 1 and WTC 2, knowing where the planes would hit - that would also be a problem...

Thank you for your honesty TerryUK.

TAM:)

[TerryUK]

Thank you for your honesty TerryUK.

TAM:)

Hey steady TAM - you'll make me blush :D

[firecoins]

1. Its FDNY. Not the NYFD.

2. If the goal was a war for oil, why bother crashing a plane into the Pentagon or into a field in PA. It seems the collpase of WTC 1 & 2 would have been more than enough. Few people knew about 7 because it happaned so late and was empty. Why would anyone be looking for evidence in WTC 7 anyway if the cover story of Islamic militants was to be believed?

[patchbunny]

I suggest more ventillation in the garage....

:D

[patchbunny]

The most common answer to that one says that firefighters that died were the ones that wouldn't accept the bribes to stay quiet and had to be eliminated.
So, what, they bribed them all as they arrived at the WTC so as to prevent anyone from phoning someone else and reporting the bribe attempt?

This is why, despite how much I enjoy reading about their exploits, I could never do what Randi, Gravy, or the many other debunkers out there do. I just can't tolerate that level of complete and willful stupidity.

--Patch

[Concept]

Whilst painting ping pong balls in my garage, my mind drifted to the CT's varied arguments on how WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolitions. Sorry if this question has been asked before, but I can't understand why it would have been blown up?


The author of 9/11 Review offers this 'explanation':

Dissecting the official myth reveals a set of two memes:

* Islamic militants hijack jetliners with simple weapons.
* Jumbojet crashes cause buildings to collapse.

These memes function primarily on a subconscious level. They are reinforced through repetition, and bypass rational argument.

Memes spread through reinforcement. The first meme is reinforced by the repeated success of the alleged teams of hijackers in taking over the flights. The second meme is reinforced by the collapses of both of the towers hit by jetliners, and the collapse of a portion of the Pentagon above the crash zone. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, but its collapse aids the second meme by making steel buildings seem prone to collapse. Repetition of unlikely events is even more unlikely in fact, but is favorable for the meme.

Memes can succeed in spite of the absence of precedent, and of contradictions to easily demonstrated facts. The fact that no steel high-rise has ever collapsed from fires, and the fact that no steel building has ever collapsed in a top-down manner, did not stand in the way of the second meme.


h t t p://w w w.911review.com/myth/index.html

:boggled:

[Alareth]

The author of 9/11 Review offers this 'explanation':




h t t p://w w w.911review.com/myth/index.html

:boggled:


I will agree that most arguments used by the truthers have become very bad memes

[OldTigerCub]

The author of 9/11 Review offers this 'explanation':


Quote:
Dissecting the official myth reveals a set of two memes:

* Islamic militants hijack jetliners with simple weapons.
* Jumbojet crashes cause buildings to collapse.

These memes function primarily on a subconscious level. They are reinforced through repetition, and bypass rational argument.

Memes spread through reinforcement. The first meme is reinforced by the repeated success of the alleged teams of hijackers in taking over the flights. The second meme is reinforced by the collapses of both of the towers hit by jetliners, and the collapse of a portion of the Pentagon above the crash zone. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, but its collapse aids the second meme by making steel buildings seem prone to collapse. Repetition of unlikely events is even more unlikely in fact, but is favorable for the meme.

Memes can succeed in spite of the absence of precedent, and of contradictions to easily demonstrated facts. The fact that no steel high-rise has ever collapsed from fires, and the fact that no steel building has ever collapsed in a top-down manner, did not stand in the way of the second meme.



Soooo....does that mean that the author is saying a reinforced meme caused the collapses? And all this time I thought it was caused by 2 big dang airplanes!:rolleyes:

[Mancman]

I think it would make sense that those responsible for planning 9/11 wanted to get maximum effect.
Therefor, they would likely want to flatten the whole WTC...
So, on this assumption, the three main buildings would be targets.
First, the terrorists would crash the planes, one into each of the three buildings. Then later, pre-planted devices would be detonated to make sure all three buildings collapsed.
WTC 7 would have been pre-rigged with some sort of devices to bring it down, as would WTC 1 and WTC 2.
The plane that would have crashed into WTC 7 didn't get there because it crashed (flight 93 ) or never took off ( flight 23? )



Why would the government concoct a story in which terrorists hijacked a plane but chose to aim it at a totally unknown target which was extremely difficult to hit?

Nobody had heard of WTC7 before 9/11, it was not at all famous. It would instantly set alarm bells ringing if the terrorists supposedly flew into NYC and hit an unknown building, surrounded by taller buildings on 3 sides, instead of say the Empire State, U.N and dozens (or hundreds) of more likely targets in the area.

[Concept]

I will agree that most arguments used by the truthers have become very bad memes


Absolutely. While I'm no expert on memetics, I think that much is certainly clear and true.

[brief aside] At the risk of running this thread off course, does anyone know where the controlled demolition hypothesis originated? [/brief aside]

[Alareth]

Absolutely. While I'm no expert on memetics, I think that much is certainly clear and true.

[brief aside] At the risk of running this thread off course, does anyone know where the controlled demolition hypothesis originated? [/brief aside]

Apparently the first one appeared quite literally before the dust from the collapses had settled:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2508657&postcount=39

[Concept]

Apparently the first one appeared quite literally before the dust from the collapses had settled:


Much appreciated! :)

[Humbucker]

Aside from the complete unnecessariness (is that a word?) of bringing down WTC7, the other thing about the whole CD/inside job scenario that I can't fathom, is why it would even be necessary to bring down the twin towers. If the goal was to create terror and crystalize public opinion to allow an invasion in the Middle-East, wouldn't it have been enough to simply fly the planes into the twin towers? Wasn't that horrible enough? I recall feeling quite terrorized at the time, just after the 2nd plane hit. That was enough to bring home the realization that NYC was being attacked by terrorists.

[Bell]

Oh my, just watching the CNN coverage at archive.org

Around 4:10 pm, reports that "Building 7 at World Trade CTR on fire, may collapse"

Disinfo!

[Wartrac]

Everyone has it backwards....We find our villians at the secret meeting place of the Bohemian Grove.

GWB: "Dickster we really need to get rid of the documents in WTC7."

Cheney: "Well we could call that CIA asset Obama, errr Moosama, ahhh Chaka Khan, oh **** whatever his name is." We can get him to make another one of those car bombs and take it out."

GWB: "Heck no, it's been done." "We need something with a little more flare, ya know so we can beat the war drums after."

Larry S comes out from behind the little umbrella in his drink. "Yeesh guys, I could use something like that for the Towers. See I'm losing money and I need to clear the asbestos in the Towers." "Too bad we can't do something that would do everything at once".

Dickster and GW look at each other at the sametime as the collective lightbulb goes off.

[Sabrina]

Having watched some of the NBC footage of that day, I can recall seeing a reporter saying something about some firefighter or other first responder mentioning "secondary devices"; my GUESS is that this is what started the concept percolating in people's minds, and the more paranoid they are, the more likely they were to run with it. Rational people would realize, after watching these clips later, that there was so much wrong and misquoted information being reported that day that almost NOTHING from it was really usable. It's not until several weeks later that we really received accurate information, something the twoofers fail to recognize.

[Travis]

Is that some sort of safety mask you're using as the back of your Crow ..... robot thingy?


Didn't someone propose some sort of humanitarian reason for bringing down 7WTC? Aiding the rescue efforts or something like that.

[Civilized Worm]

I think it would make sense that those responsible for planning 9/11 wanted to get maximum effect.


Because bringing down the twin towers wasn't enough? :confused: Anyway doesn't that contradict the point often made by twoofers that most people are unaware that a third building collapsed?


Non - the FFNY didn't destroy WTC. Also "pull it" was obviously not referring to any demolition, but rather pull the remaining FF operation.


:thumbsup: Someone give Terry a gold star!

[tuc0]

Having watched some of the NBC footage of that day, I can recall seeing a reporter saying something about some firefighter or other first responder mentioning "secondary devices"; my GUESS is that this is what started the concept percolating in people's minds, and the more paranoid they are, the more likely they were to run with it. Rational people would realize, after watching these clips later, that there was so much wrong and misquoted information being reported that day that almost NOTHING from it was really usable. It's not until several weeks later that we really received accurate information, something the twoofers fail to recognize.

Well, from the truthers' point of view only the first reports are credible, because every piece of information that came later is either screened or written by the all-powerful conspirators.

This is just one of the many crossroads where rational thinkers and truthers part ways. To them everything they hear or read is true if it conforms with their world view. They know what is true... facts are irrelevant.

[Swing Dangler]

Reasons to blow it up:

Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.
2.

Case for bad reasons:
1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.
2. Some think the entire operation may have been run out of the building, so there would be a need to destroy it.
3. Who knows what the CIA had in the building that may have needed a good cleansing probably the lizard overlords in the basement.;)
4. Cost: Anticipated repairs may have been more than insurance and rebuilding cost.
5. That pesky command bunker.
6. A plane that should have hit it did not.???

[T.A.M.]

Reasons to blow it up:

Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.
2.

Case for bad reasons:
1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.
2. Some think the entire operation may have been run out of the building, so there would be a need to destroy it.
3. Who knows what the CIA had in the building that may have needed a good cleansing probably the lizard overlords in the basement.;)
4. Cost: Anticipated repairs may have been more than insurance and rebuilding cost.
5. That pesky command bunker.
6. A plane that should have hit it did not.???


Reason to hide controlled demolition of WTC7 for purpose in your first statement (prevent further loss of life etc..) ????

TAM:)

[Jonnyclueless]

Destroying a building to save property and life....LOL!

[Corsair 115]

1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.Considering both the particular cases you mention did go to trial and produce verdicts, these would not seem to lend weight to your assertion.

[Arus808]

Reasons to blow it up:

Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.


yes, let's blow up a building to add to the chaos, and more debris, and covering up MORE people under already 30 feet of rubble.

That makes a whole lot of sense.




1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.

Yet, of course, said company's holding the information for Enron and World Com, wouldn't have kept copies ELSEWHERE. In this electronic and digital age, they wouldn't make copies and save it to disc, and have it stored elsewhere.

And seeing that the cases went to court and people were already convicted, what would "destroying" that evidence provide?

2. Some think the entire operation may have been run out of the building, so there would be a need to destroy it.

In stead of using shredders and high powered magnets to erase computer data.

3. Who knows what the CIA had in the building that may have needed a good cleansing probably the lizard overlords in the basement.

seeing as that was the main HQ of the CIA, why would they keep anything in that building?

4. Cost: Anticipated repairs may have been more than insurance and rebuilding cost.

gee, you think that spending 4 billion to rebuild would have been cheaper than to not destroy it?

5. That pesky command bunker.

absurd claim, without proof. of course.

6. A plane that should have hit it did not.???

tells us how. cause the buliding was shorter than the WTC tower (oh thos damn pesky towers).

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

As you can tell from my avatar (that is, assuming you've heard of the show) I'm a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Science_Theater_3000). I'm working on my Crow T. Robot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_t_robot) puppet and I'm making his eyes. They're ping pong balls painted a fluorescent yellow, but for some reason the paint is coming out patchwork yellow and orange.

For those who are interested, you can see the work in progress here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v728/patchbunny/IMG_0298.jpg).

--Patch

I thought maybe you were in an enclosed, unventilated space, with cans of spray paint, and decided to start believing conspiracy theories. Does it matter that when you stated that you were spray painting ping pong balls, I immediately thought of someone chasing ping pong balls across their workbench with a can of spray paint, cursing out the balls as they rolled away with the spray?

But yes, there was no reason to blow up WTC7. And even if so... why wait til everyone was out when you just "blew up" 2 towers that employed upwards of 50,000 people on a daily basis?

The JAQers never like to be asked questions. Come to think of it, they don't like being told answers either.

[Pardalis]

Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.

OK, so why the need for secrecy and a cover-up?

2. Ok

Case for bad reasons:
1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.If that was the reason, they failed.

2. Some think the entire operation may have been run out of the building, so there would be a need to destroy it.That could work in a Hollywood science fiction movie, but in real life people are smarter than that. You really think V for Vendetta is a smart movie do you? :eek:

3. Who knows what the CIA had in the building that may have needed a good cleansing probably the lizard overlords in the basement.;)
OK, still, demolishing the building is not the intelligent way to go about it.

4. Cost: Anticipated repairs may have been more than insurance and rebuilding cost.Let's see your numbers.

5. That pesky command bunker.It's a shame they couldn't use it that day.

6. A plane that should have hit it did not.???So they planned to crash a plane in it but the plan aborted, so they decided to go ahead with the CD anyway? :boggled:

Brilliant. Got anymore?

[Swing Dangler]

absurd claim, without proof. of course.


Claim? It is all speculation. DUH!

If WTC 7 was CD'ed, as it appears it was, the only way to prove the 'why' as the original poster asked is in a court of law or speculation.

Not too many bulbs on today.

Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.
OK, so why the need for secrecy and a cover-up?

For the insurance claim? You tell me.

Case for bad reasons:
1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.
If that was the reason, they failed.
I guess humans aren't perfect at everything, including conspiracies.

That could work in a Hollywood science fiction movie, but in real life people are smarter than that.
George Bush...nuff said! ;)

Let's see your numbers.
Again, may have been.


So they planned to crash a plane in it but the plan aborted, so they decided to go ahead with the CD anyway?
Lets Roll.

[Pardalis]

For the insurance claim? You tell me.

So they decided to CD the building to avoid further loss of life, but they hid it because they didn't want to get sued?

Read it out loud to yourself and try not to laugh.

I guess humans aren't perfect at everything, including conspiracies.And speculating.

George Bush...nuff said!You've just debunked yourself.

Again, may have been.You got to have some idea of what you are talking about.

Lets Roll.?

[Pardalis]

OK Swing, now that you've had your laugh, do you really believe any of these speculations ?

[Swing Dangler]

Considering both the particular cases you mention did go to trial and produce verdicts, these would not seem to lend weight to your assertion.

Can't predict the future, I guess.

What else was lost out of that SEC office?

[jaydeehess]

Reasons to blow it up:

Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.


In which case there would be absolutly no reason to cover up any controlled demolition of WTC 7. However, I daresay that no CD expert in the world would dare attempt it given that the buildinbg was already damaged, was on fire, was at least twice the size of the largest CD ever previously attempted, and was to be done within several hours of the collapse of the towers.

Case for bad reasons:
1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.

Hell of a lot easier to simply have a fire rip through the offices.

2. Some think the entire operation may have been run out of the building, so there would be a need to destroy it.

Anything that was in the offices could have been easily removed rather than risk some grunt doing the clean up coming across papers or equipment.


3. Who knows what the CIA had in the building that may have needed a good cleansing probably the lizard overlords in the basement.;)

pesky lizards

4. Cost: Anticipated repairs may have been more than insurance and rebuilding cost.

CD could then have waited and been done months later. It would not affect the insurance claim at all.

5. That pesky command bunker.

What about it? Everyone knew it was there. It was evac'd prior to the collapse of WTC 2

6. A plane that should have hit it did not.???

What?? the CD was on a seven hour timer that could not be stopped? That's worse than "Die Hard II".

[Swing Dangler]

OK Swing, now that you've had your laugh, do you really believe any of these speculations ?

Believe? You mean as in religious belief? Nope.

I have a hard time accepting as fact the speculations on possible motivations for the CD of WTC 7.

Would I accept some of those as possible motivation, sure. Why not? Human motivation is a powerful thing.

[jaydeehess]

If the reason was to cause max effect on the American people then it need not have been WTC 7, it need not have been only WTC complex buildings. Why not wire up the Post Office or Verizon or Banker's Trust, or the Winter Gardens?

[Pardalis]

Believe? You mean as in religious belief?

No, I mean believe as in think it is valid.

I have a hard time accepting as fact the speculations on possible motivations for the CD of WTC 7. Fair enough. But if you think WTC7 was a CD, you got to have some idea why they decided to blow it up.

Would I accept some of those as possible motivation, sure. Why not? Human motivation is a powerful thing.Which one is the most probable in your opinion?

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE]So they decided to CD the building to avoid further loss of life, but they hid it because they didn't want to get sued?
Sued? I'm not aware of that. I'm not privy to the claim, but if a building is demolished on purpose would the insurance policy pay up? I have no idea.

I would like to see the details behind the court case and the expert testimony involved in those proceedings.

[SDC]

If the reason was to cause max effect on the American people then it need not have been WTC 7, it need not have been only WTC complex buildings. Why not wire up the Post Office or Verizon or Banker's Trust, or the Winter Gardens?

Or the Statue of Liberty or even the Empire State.

[Pardalis]

Swing, do you want to be serious about it? Conspiracy or not, is 9/11 just a big joke to you?

[Swing Dangler]

No, I mean believe as in think it is valid.

Fair enough. But if you think WTC7 was a CD, you got to have some idea why they decided to blow it up.

Now your setting me up! LoL!

Which one is the most probable in your opinion?

Well for the sake of conversation on this boring Monday:

Lets break it down first:

1. Who has the capability to rig the building without interference from local police and local security all without tipping the public off?

2. What tenets within the building would have access to the resources to plan the rigging and to carry out the rigging of the building?

3. Is there a historical record of similar tenets destroying their own residence so to speak or with a record of terrorism?

4. Which tenets would have access to the entire building?

5. Which tenet would most likely hire foreign operatives to maintain "plausible denialbility" if the fire excuse doesn't pan out?

6. Which tenet could have the investigation limited to certain floors and areas?

I'm going to go with the Lizard Overlords from Planet Xenia's NWO.

You?

Please don't alter quotations of other posters.

[T.A.M.]

your suggested reasons for blowing up WTC7 are not very compelling, and lack any evidence what so ever...this would not even make it to court, let alone have a chance of winning.

TAM:)

[Swing Dangler]

Swing, do you want to be serious about it? Conspiracy or not, is 9/11 just a big joke to you?

Of course it is not one big joke. But I'm wondering if you are just setting me up for attack after attack or do you want to discuss it logically?

One, I think you can write it off as a "mass attack on the American psyche" for WTC 7.

[T.A.M.]

Find one CD EXPERT who will agree with you that in a busy, well used, always open building like WTC7, that the rigging of it for CD could have been done without someone noticing...come on...

TAM:)

[Swing Dangler]

your suggested reasons for blowing up WTC7 are not very compelling, and lack any evidence what so ever...this would not even make it to court, let alone have a chance of winning.

TAM:)

Hi Tam! See my post below in great big black letters.

[Swing Dangler]

Find one CD EXPERT who will agree with you that in a busy, well used, always open building like WTC7, that the rigging of it for CD could have been done without someone noticing...come on...

TAM:)

Day or night?

I'm not aware of the inside layout of the building of course and I don't think you are.

Off topic but...
Hey, did you happen to trace the route of that jet fuel to B-4 in the North Tower?

[SDC]

2. What tenets within the building would have access to the resources to plan the rigging and to carry out the rigging of the building?

3. Is there a historical record of similar tenets ...

4. Which tenets would have access...

5. Which tenet would most likely hire foreign operatives...

6. Which tenet could have the investigation limited...



Is this meant to be a not-so-subtle reference to the ex-director of the CIA, or do you have a rogue spellchecker? Perhaps one that checks the text for conspiracy references and adds them when needed.

[Pardalis]

Swing, please learn to use the quote function properly.

I'm going to go with the Lizard Overlords from Planet Xenia's NWO.

OK, so you are not being serious about it and 9/11 is a big freaking joke to you.

[Par]

Find one CD EXPERT who will agree with you that in a busy, well used, always open building like WTC7, that the rigging of it for CD could have been done without someone noticing...come on...
Day or night?


I don’t wish to speak for TAM, but I suspect you’re free to the find this expert at any hour you wish.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing, please learn to use the quote function properly.OK, so you are not being serious about it and 9/11 is a big freaking joke to you.

Now wait just a minute. The Lizard issue is things I've seen in response to truthers who post here. Excuse me for thinking you are a debunker 'just asking questions'.

[JamesB]

I am constantly amused by the truthers mentioning the CIA had an office there. As if they would be so motivated to blow up their own building. What, they didn't like the break room or something and couldn't get out of the lease?

[Swing Dangler]

Is this meant to be a not-so-subtle reference to the ex-director of the CIA, or do you have a rogue spellchecker? Perhaps one that checks the text for conspiracy references and adds them when needed.

I will let the conspirator inside of you answer that one.

[Sabrina]

Heck, who says it had to be in New York at all? Coulda been the Sears Tower, or Mount Rushmore, or any other monument or tall building. Why WTC7?

[Alferd_Packer]

I was wondering the same thing. Although it gave me a good idea for a cub scout activity tomorrow. Thanks for that.:)

Care to share?

[Swing Dangler]

I am constantly amused by the truthers mentioning the CIA had an office there. As if they would be so motivated to blow up their own building. What, they didn't like the break room or something and couldn't get out of the lease?
Terrible coffee in that break room you mentioned.

I guess you could use the OKC building as an example.

Off topic of course, did you happen to see the Conspiracy Files on the Discovery Channel over the OKC building. They recreated the truck bombing and didn't quite get the results they were hoping to achieve. Not only that, the column didn't explode apart either as viewed in the animation or in league with the official story on that building. It was only peppered with shrapnel and was still in one piece. Imagine that.
Then they tried again without the truck surrounding the bomb and it still didn't get that column to shatter into pieces.

[Pardalis]

1. Who has the capability to rig the building without interference from local police and local security all without tipping the public off?

2. What tenets within the building would have access to the resources to plan the rigging and to carry out the rigging of the building?

3. Is there a historical record of similar tenets destroying their own residence so to speak or with a record of terrorism?

4. Which tenets would have access to the entire building?

5. Which tenet would most likely hire foreign operatives to maintain "plausible denialbility" if the fire excuse doesn't pan out?

6. Which tenet could have the investigation limited to certain floors and areas?


Of course you are implying the CIA, I don't think they are that omnipotent. Care to provide any proof that the CIA could do any of these things?

[Sabrina]

Well as regards number three, there is no historical record I'm aware of wherein the CIA destroys its own residence, so to speak, so that's one area that doesn't fit the CIA at least.

[DGM]

Care to share?
We're doing a science badge. Did you see the "Myth busters" when the re-floated the boat with ping-pong balls? Think smaller scale.:D

[Par]

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times


For the sake of clarity, you should probably parenthetically add the following to your signature:


Skilling is a structural engineer and not a demolition expert.
He is indulging in off-the-cuff speculation.
No one has claimed that World Trade Center buildings were simply impervious to demolition.

[Swing Dangler]

Of course you are implying the CIA, I don't think they are that omnipotent. Care to provide any proof that the CIA could do any of these things?

ROFLMAO. It is speculation. Why the hell would you ask for proof?? Did you read the big black letters below that I posted?

Does the CIA fit all of those discussion questions I posted?

[Arus808]

ROFLMAO. It is speculation.

You simply can't just "speculate" and use that as your scapegoat. There is something that led you down that train of thought. Its not something you just pull out of thin air, and state.

We can speculate that a herd of unicorns being chased by the Red Bull* caused WTC 7 to collapse, but of course, we freely admit that there is no proof of that speculation and can see why its not something anyone would take into consideration as a valid reason for why it collapsed.



*kudos to anyone who gets the reference.

[Swing Dangler]

For the sake of clarity, you should probably parenthetically add the following to your signature:


Skilling is a structural engineer and not a demolition expert.
He is indulging in off-the-cuff speculation.
No one has claimed that World Trade Center buildings were simply impervious to demolition.


He is indulging in off the cuff speculation? Care to provide proof of that?
Or is it likely he had been pouring over the buildings plans after the 1993 truck bombing and is quite aware what would and what would not bring his buildings down?

Well as regards number three, there is no historical record I'm aware of wherein the CIA destroys its own residence, so to speak, so that's one area that doesn't fit the CIA at least.
I'm not aware of any instances either. Other people's buildings, perhaps, but not their own.

[Swing Dangler]

You simply can't just "speculate" and use that as your scapegoat. There is something that led you down that train of thought. Its not something you just pull out of thin air, and state.

We can speculate that a herd of unicorns being chased by the Red Bull caused WTC 7 to collapse, but of course, we freely admit that there is no proof of that speculation and can see why its not something anyone would take into consideration as a valid reason for why it collapsed.
Motivation causes collapses??

It isn't a scapegoat, it is speculation. Go back to those questions I asked to see if any of the residents of the building matched any of the criteria and then we can discuss your answer and pure speculations.

[SDC]

Well as regards number three, there is no historical record I'm aware of wherein the CIA destroys its own residence, so to speak, so that's one area that doesn't fit the CIA at least.

One must understand -- the CIA is an all-purpose, all-occasions, one-size-fits-all monster. All that needs to be done is to refer to the presence of the CIA and all thought and conversation stops. It is proof that Evil has been done, is being done, or will be done. That, at least, is the mindset.

I don't know whether I've ever known anyone in the CIA. I knew a guy in grad school who joined the NSA as a Soviet-bloc analyst of some sort. Didn't see him again for 15 years. (Approx 1978-93.)

Once, in grad school, I had a very brief interview with ... Defense Intelligence of some sort. It took me and the interviewer about 1 minute to establish that we weren't a match so we just chatted for 20-30 min. The secretary at the Russian studies center at my university just threw me in to avoid embarrassment because no one had signed up for an interview. (Again, ca.1978). Oh well. I'm always happy to talk and even listen, if I can learn something.

[Pardalis]

Does the CIA fit all of those discussion questions I posted?

I don't know.

Which tenet could have the investigation limited to certain floors and areas

This one especially smells funky. I don't see how the CIA could have any impact on an investigation.

[Arus808]

Motivation causes collapses??

It isn't a scapegoat, it is speculation.

No, its your scapegoat, so that you dont provide the reason behind your claims. Your scapegoat, is to say they are merely "speculations" . Sorry, we dont buy that.

You've been here long enough, given AMPLE answers to why your "speculations" are not grounded in reality, yet you continue to repeat them like a broken record.

So, either provide your reasons as to why you think that way, or retract your claims.

[Sabrina]

You simply can't just "speculate" and use that as your scapegoat. There is something that led you down that train of thought. Its not something you just pull out of thin air, and state.

We can speculate that a herd of unicorns being chased by the Red Bull* caused WTC 7 to collapse, but of course, we freely admit that there is no proof of that speculation and can see why its not something anyone would take into consideration as a valid reason for why it collapsed.



*kudos to anyone who gets the reference.

Get the reference? Arus, I own the MOVIE. I ADORE The Last Unicorn. :D

[Pardalis]

chicks... :rolleyes:

[Sabrina]

One must understand -- the CIA is an all-purpose, all-occasions, one-size-fits-all monster. All that needs to be done is to refer to the presence of the CIA and all thought and conversation stops. It is proof that Evil has been done, is being done, or will be done. That, at least, is the mindset.

I don't know whether I've ever known anyone in the CIA. I knew a guy in grad school who joined the NSA as a Soviet-bloc analyst of some sort. Didn't see him again for 15 years. (Approx 1978-93.)

Once, in grad school, I had a very brief interview with ... Defense Intelligence of some sort. It took me and the interviewer about 1 minute to establish that we weren't a match so we just chatted for 20-30 min. The secretary at the Russian studies center at my university just threw me in to avoid embarrassment because no one had signed up for an interview. (Again, ca.1978). Oh well. I'm always happy to talk and even listen, if I can learn something.

I work in the Intelligence Community and have met several people who have either worked for the CIA in the past or work for them now. The CIA has its issues, much like any other intelligence agency, but it is hardly an all-knowing black cabal of evildoers that is not subject to any law. If anything, US government agencies are held to a much higher standard than regular Americans are. Do they make mistakes and screw up in ways that make them look incompetent/evil/idiotic? Sure, but they are human, after all. And I know of no instance in which IC people were not held accountable for the error made (and whatever twoofer is reading this thread, please do NOT bring up 9/11 as an example; it has been shown time and again that there was virtually NOTHING that could be done to prevent 9/11) and penalized for it.

[Sabrina]

chicks... :rolleyes:

Roosters. :p

[Arus808]

^_^ haha Sabrina...I met Peter S. Beagle over the last weekend. Had him sign my copy of the BOOK and DVD. and got more insight into the manga version of his book.

[Corsair 115]

If WTC 7 was CD'ed, as it appears it was...The collapse of WTC7 may be said to have visually looked similar to a controlled demolition, but you're neglecting another important item: sound.

Explosive charges used to bring down a building in a controlled demolition are LOUD.

The sounds they produce are very noticeable and quite distinctive, and anyone within blocks and blocks of the building would have easily heard them.

No such sounds are recorded on any news footage of the WTC7 collapse, nor do any witnesses in the area report hearing the distinct sounds of explosive demolition charges going off.

[GT/CS]

No, its your scapegoat, so that you dont provide the reason behind your claims. Your scapegoat, is to say they are merely "speculations" . Sorry, we dont buy that.

You've been here long enough, given AMPLE answers to why your "speculations" are not grounded in reality, yet you continue to repeat them like a broken record.

So, either provide your reasons as to why you think that way, or retract your claims.

Hmmm....so we're talking about a troll that keeps a scapegoat as a pet?

[Drudgewire]

We can speculate that a herd of unicorns being chased by the Red Bull* caused WTC 7 to collapse
That's the craziest thing I've ever heard.

If you think they didn't bring down that building on purpose, you have no clue what really goes on in unicorn societies. :eusa_snooty:

[Bell]

Silverstein: "How to destroy WTC7... how to destroy WTC7..."
FDNY: "We could 'pull it' with explosives."
Silverstein: "Much to complicated. Wait one! How about we dump WTC1 on it? Would that work?"

[patchbunny]

I thought maybe you were in an enclosed, unventilated space, with cans of spray paint, and decided to start believing conspiracy theories. Does it matter that when you stated that you were spray painting ping pong balls, I immediately thought of someone chasing ping pong balls across their workbench with a can of spray paint, cursing out the balls as they rolled away with the spray?
Curse you, ping pong ball!!! By what unseen force are you rolling away as I spray you with Krylon White!

If I did it on canvas I bet I could sell the resulting painting to some suck... er, collector.

--Patch

[pomeroo]

Terrible coffee in that break room you mentioned.

I guess you could use the OKC building as an example.

Off topic of course, did you happen to see the Conspiracy Files on the Discovery Channel over the OKC building. They recreated the truck bombing and didn't quite get the results they were hoping to achieve. Not only that, the column didn't explode apart either as viewed in the animation or in league with the official story on that building. It was only peppered with shrapnel and was still in one piece. Imagine that.
Then they tried again without the truck surrounding the bomb and it still didn't get that column to shatter into pieces.


Hey, Swingie, here on Earth the Discovery-Times channel aired a documentary that recreated McVeigh's bomb and, oddly enough, got exactly the result required to blow the conspiracy nuts out of the water. Turns out that the blast had the force predicted by the real scientists and demolition experts.

What? You were talking about the same documentary?!?!

Nah, you never lie.

[ZENSMACK89]

One reason could be explosive devices. If explosive devices were able to get close enough to the buildings like they did in 93 it would have been a proven security breach of exactly what security was suppose to be watching for. This would have caused an insurance payout nightmare as I’m sure all kinds of security measures had to be met after 93 in order to reinsure the buildings. It also would have presented a liability problem for the Port Authority. The plane and plane initiated fires make it no fault and a much easier insurance payout. Even with this no fault claim it still took 5 years for Silverstein to collect his money. This covers the insurance claims as well as getting people off the hook whose job it was to watch for explosives getting near the building.

The following article proves that they would be concerned with just that…
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4189/is_20010914/ai_n10164926

Another possibility I think is that its possible WTC7 was never meant to be damaged but once it was it posed a security risk. It was a high security building that housed several Gov agencies and once it was damaged it could no longer be safely secured nor possible to safely retrieve the many sensitive documents and data inside. A decision had to quickly be made as to what was the best thing to do. So they pulled it.

Or it could simply be something only a real investigation could uncover.

[Civilized Worm]

One, I think you can write it off as a "mass attack on the American psyche" for WTC 7.


So what effect on the american psyche would you say the collapse of the WTC7 caused? I'm rather stumped as to why people would be upset about the collapse of a building most of them had never heard of and in which no one was hurt, especially given what else went on that day.

[jaydeehess]

If the building had to be destroyed due to the structural damage it received due to the collapse of the towers that would not affect the insurance claim at all. If the engineers deceided that it had to come down then insurance would pay for that. IF the building was surreptisiously dropped then the insurance paid nothing for the explosives or the demolition team's expertise. It means that silverstein would get LESS.

Hey SwingD. Did you notice my post last page that adressed your points?

[jaydeehess]

Another possibility I think is that its possible WTC7 was never meant to be damaged but once it was it posed a security risk. It was a high security building that housed several Gov agencies and once it was damaged it could no longer be safely secured nor possible to safely retrieve the many sensitive documents and data inside. A decision had to quickly be made as to what was the best thing to do. So they pulled it.

Or it could simply be something only a real investigation could uncover.

utter B.S.
If the building was accidentaly damaged to the point of not being habitable or repairable then the agencies in question would simply quarentine it and bring in vehicles and remove everything they wanted.

This in fact would offer the best cover story to do so. No one would argue that the CIA for eg. should simply leave those files in the building.

Work would be done to shore the building up enough to allow the removal of docuements and computers. Each tenant would be allowed in to their own offices to remove whatever they needed.

With the building coming down as it did the docuements in those offices were scattered to the winds. NOW THAT'S a security nightmare!!!!!!!

[GT/CS]

One reason could be explosive devices. If explosive devices were able to get close enough to the buildings like they did in 93 it would have been a proven security breach of exactly what security was suppose to be watching for. This would have caused an insurance payout nightmare as I’m sure all kinds of security measures had to be met after 93 in order to reinsure the buildings. It also would have presented a liability problem for the Port Authority. The plane and plane initiated fires make it no fault and a much easier insurance payout. Even with this no fault claim it still took 5 years for Silverstein to collect his money. This covers the insurance claims as well as getting people off the hook whose job it was to watch for explosives getting near the building.

The following article proves that they would be concerned with just that…
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4189/is_20010914/ai_n10164926

Another possibility I think is that its possible WTC7 was never meant to be damaged but once it was it posed a security risk. It was a high security building that housed several Gov agencies and once it was damaged it could no longer be safely secured nor possible to safely retrieve the many sensitive documents and data inside. A decision had to quickly be made as to what was the best thing to do. So they pulled it.

Or it could simply be something only a real investigation could uncover.

So after the building was damaged and the fires started some demolition experts went into the building and wired it for a cd with silent explosives. Where did they find these demolition experts on such short notice,and better yet, where did they find some stupid enough to work with explosives in a burning building that was leaning to one side?

Do you ever read, and then think about, the things you write?

[sleahead]

utter B.S.

Agreed. Zensmack, I'm constantly told these same people controlled Ground Zero for months, whisked away tens of thousands of tons of steel and whatever other evidence was there. Now you're telling me they couldn't control their own offices so they had to blow up the building. No sale.

[Sabrina]

I'm more than positive that LEGIBLE pieces of paper and READABLE computer hard drives survived the collapse of all three buildings. So explain to me, please, how that maintains national security when these things are being scattered to the four corners of the earth by the wind and when the debris is being dug out with backhoes.

Geesh, THINK for a second!

[ZENSMACK89]

No. I didn't say it was had to be structurally damaged. Even with fire just gutting a few floors who are you going to send in the building to retrieve anything? IT people? Clerical people? How long can you wait? Who are you going to send in there who knows where and what to look for? Can you do another operation like at the Pentagon where you have a bunch of people in khakis and ties surveying the lawn?

It was in the interest of New York to blame everything on terrorists and planes. Remember post 9/11 and the concern for clean-up, rebuilding, and the NYC economy. They couldn't afford slow insurance payouts or endless litigations sending NYC into further debt. This is why plane only theories were pushed and any other possibility not looked into or swept under the carpet. This is why the steel was removed so fast. This is why the stories of so many witnesses on that day either stopped or changed. If there were explosives It didn't matter who put them there. They weren't supposed to be able to.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm more than positive that LEGIBLE pieces of paper and READABLE computer hard drives survived the collapse of all three buildings. So explain to me, please, how that maintains national security when these things are being scattered to the four corners of the earth by the wind and when the debris is being dug out with backhoes.

Geesh, THINK for a second!

Really? So what did they retrieve from WTC7? Anything?

[SDC]

It was in the interest of New York to blame everything on terrorists and planes. Remember post 9/11 and the concern for clean-up, rebuilding, and the NYC economy. They couldn't afford slow insurance payouts or endless litigations sending NYC into further debt. This is why plane only theories were pushed and any other possibility not looked into or swept under the carpet. This is why the steel was removed so fast. This is why the stories of so many witnesses on that day either stopped or changed. If there were explosives It didn't matter who put them there. They weren't supposed to be able to.

Darned New Yorkers! That's the real conspiracy. Well, fellow New Yorkers,* those darned kids have caught us out at last. Curses; foiled again!

*You can't blame me. I was in southeast lower Michigan in 1999-2004.

[jaydeehess]

No. I didn't say it was had to be structurally damaged. Even with fire just gutting a few floors who are you going to send in the building to retrieve anything? IT people? Clerical people? How long can you wait? Who are you going to send in there who knows where and what to look for? Can you do another operation like at the Pentagon where you have a bunch of people in khakis and ties surveying the lawn?

It was in the interest of New York to blame everything on terrorists and planes. Remember post 9/11 and the concern for clean-up, rebuilding, and the NYC economy. They couldn't afford slow insurance payouts or endless litigations sending NYC into further debt. This is why plane only theories were pushed and any other possibility not looked into or swept under the carpet. This is why the steel was removed so fast. This is why the stories of so many witnesses on that day either stopped or changed. If there were explosives It didn't matter who put them there. They weren't supposed to be able to.


:boggled:
Who the hell is going to go in the building before the fires are out and compromise security?
You send in whomever you want AFTER the fire is out and the building has been shored up. You don't need an IT guy to retreive a hard drive, you don't need to be a clerk to retreive a file cabinet. You send in whomever is cleared to view whatever it is you need.

Before that time you secure the building. Hell, even construction sites have some security.

As for slow insurance payouts, just how has the collapse of the building sped that up, oh wise one?

(decorum prevents further comment on Zens' ability to reason)

[jaydeehess]

Really? So what did they retrieve from WTC7? Anything?

Yes but is was a damned sight more difficult than it would have been if the building had not collapsed, not to mention that the security of every docuement in the building was compromised when it did collapse.

[PhantomWolf]

They couldn't afford slow insurance payouts or endless litigations sending NYC into further debt.

You mean like the ones that happened over the WTC towers?

[ZENSMACK89]

You mean like the ones that happened over the WTC towers?
I addressed that. Do you think it would have gone better if security was proven to have been breached?

[ZENSMACK89]

Yes but is was a damned sight more difficult than it would have been if the building had not collapsed, not to mention that the security of every docuement in the building was compromised when it did collapse.
It would have been easier for whom? Who could have been sent into the burnt out floors and surrounding areas to look for sensitive documents and data?

[PhantomWolf]

I addressed that.

So you adressed why they blew up a building to avoid Insurance issues, but ended up in a tangled up lawsuit over insurance issues? I must have missed that.

Do you think it would have gone better if security was proven to have been breached?

That depends, do you think that it's so much more difficult to have stationed security gaurds about a building that was already inside a cordoned off zone making sure that no-one enters without authorization than to have had a demolition crew sneak into an unstable, burning building in front of the world's media, then rig and demo the buildings and have no one who was standing there actually notice it?

[PhantomWolf]

It would have been easier for whom? Who could have been sent into the burnt out floors and surrounding areas to look for sensitive documents and data?

And who would have been sent into a burning unstable building to rig explosives?

[patchbunny]

Ya know, I just want to apologize to all for opening up a thread that's gone the direction it did. Next time I wonder what goes through the mind of a CT I'll stick to breathing paint fumes in the garage.

--Patch

[ZENSMACK89]

:boggled:
Who the hell is going to go in the building before the fires are out and compromise security?
You send in whomever you want AFTER the fire is out and the building has been shored up. You don't need an IT guy to retreive a hard drive, you don't need to be a clerk to retreive a file cabinet. You send in whomever is cleared to view whatever it is you need.

Before that time you secure the building. Hell, even construction sites have some security.

As for slow insurance payouts, just how has the collapse of the building sped that up, oh wise one?

(decorum prevents further comment on Zens' ability to reason)
So what was recovered in the WTC7 rubble? And how hot was the rubble that wasn't even hit by the plane or contained any jet fuel?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

Do you think maybe if it could cause rapid corrosion of steel it could maybe incinerate a lot of things?

And why did Guliani do this?

http://firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=27125

Firefighters Union Letter On Rudy Giuliani
March 8, 2007

[ZENSMACK89]

Ya know, I just want to apologize to all for opening up a thread that's gone the direction it did. Next time I wonder what goes through the mind of a CT I'll stick to breathing paint fumes in the garage.

--Patch
Is that a promise?

[jaydeehess]

It would have been easier for whom? Who could have been sent into the burnt out floors and surrounding areas to look for sensitive documents and data?

Its getting more difficult to maintain decorum..................

Agents of the agencies who are retreiving their materials!
Deutsche Bank removed docuements from their building before demolition started. Do you suppose they sent in 90 pound female file clerks in skirts and high heels?


Do you really, I mean really, believe that it was easier to retrieve material from the wreckage of a 47 storey building?
Really?
OR
Do you really believe that collapsing a 47 storey building is an efficient and secure way to destroy senstive materials?
Really?

[ZENSMACK89]

How many would have to be rigged in light of the fact you don't think there were any to begin with? If damage to one side of the building is claimed to have taken down the entire structure how many explosive would be needed on how many support coumns to take it down. How much fire was near the bottom of the support columns?

[jaydeehess]

So what was recovered in the WTC7 rubble? And how hot was the rubble that wasn't even hit by the plane or contained any jet fuel?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

Do you think maybe if it could cause rapid corrosion of steel it could maybe incinerate a lot of things?

Riiight an efficient and secure way to ensure the destruction of sensitive materials is to house them in a building and then collapse that building in the (vain) hope that all said materials will end up either shredded or in areas of continuing fires in the rubble.

You really believe that?
Really?

And why did Guliani do this?

http://firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=27125

Firefighters Union Letter On Rudy Giuliani
March 8, 2007Note to Zen
There was never a search for civilian and FF remains in the wreckage of WTC 7 as there was no one there when the building came down.

Decorum aside, you are proving yourself more the idiot the more you post. Quit while you are merely behind.
Please remember rule 12! Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[ZENSMACK89]

Its getting more difficult to maintain decorum..................

Agents of the agencies who are retreiving their materials!
Deutsche Bank removed documents from their building before demolition started. Do you suppose they sent in 90 pound female file clerks in skirts and high heels?

No that's my argument you don't send 90 pound females into a fire gutted building. How many agencies were in WTC7? Do they all have clearance to see other agencies documents and data or even all of the documents and data of their own agency?


IDo you really, I mean really, believe that it was easier to retrieve material from the wreckage of a 47 storey building?
Really?
OR
Do you really believe that collapsing a 47 storey building is an efficient and secure way to destroy senstive materials?
Really?


I'm saying they hardly retrieved anything at all. They blew it up and incinerated it.

[jaydeehess]

How many would have to be rigged in light of the fact you don't think there were any to begin with? If damage to one side of the building is claimed to have taken down the entire structure how many explosive would be needed on how many support coumns to take it down. How much fire was near the bottom of the support columns?

Can you really imagine an explosives expert willing to enter a badly damaged building that is on fire (the floor does not matter Zen, fires move and explosives experts don't like to handle or place explosives if there is a possibility of fire), a building that is twice as tall as the tallest building ever dropped by controled explosive demolition, a building that is to be brought down before sunset that day?

Really?

[NDBoston]

No that's my argument you don't send 90 pound females into a fire gutted building. How many agencies were in WTC7? Do they all have clearance to see other agencies documents and data or even all of the documents and data of their own agency?





I'm saying they hardly retrieved anything at all. They blew it up and incinerated it.


I try to ignore you but sometimes.....good God.

The company with the most floors and sq ft in WTC7 was Salomon Smith Barney.

I worked there with thousands of people doing crazy hours, most doing 80-90 hour weeks. There was no evidence of massive amounts of construction being done on our floors (read up on how a building is wired for CD). Three floors had people on them 24/7 and most days you usually had someone working to past midnight.

Explain to ME how my building was wired for controlled demolition while I worked there. How did I not see this?

[ZENSMACK89]

Riiight an efficient and secure way to ensure the destruction of sensitive materials is to house them in a building and then collapse that building in the (vain) hope that all said materials will end up either shredded or in areas of continuing fires in the rubble.

You really believe that?
Really?


Why don't you tell me what they retrieved in rubble that was causing rapid corrosion of steel?


Note to Zen
There was never a search for civilian and FF remains in the wreckage of WTC 7 as there was no one there when the building came down.

I never said anyone was looking for bodies in the WTC7 rubble. I'm pointing to the area being cleared of even fire fighters.

Decorum aside, you are proving yourself more the idiot the more you post. Quit while you are merely behind.

Watch it. And says you. You've come with absolutely nothing.

[jaydeehess]

No that's my argument you don't send 90 pound females into a fire gutted building. How many agencies were in WTC7? Do they all have clearance to see other agencies documents and data or even all of the documents and data of their own agency?

NO EACH OF THEM HAVE THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES
Hundreds (at least) have clearance to view or at least handle sensitive materials. These are gov't security agencies we are talking about. They would each have their own people to send into their own offices.





I'm saying they hardly retrieved anything at all. They blew it up and incinerated it.

So you really do think that demolishing a building around sensitive materials is a secure and efficient way to destroy said materials.

Please say so if you really believe that.

[jaydeehess]

Why don't you tell me what they retrieved in rubble that was causing rapid corrosion of steel?
I, and you, are not privy to what was or was not recovered.

now state whether or not you believe that demolishing a building around sensitive materials is a secure and efficient method of destroying said materials.


I never said anyone was looking for bodies in the WTC7 rubble. I'm pointing to the area being cleared of even fire fighters.

It matters not that the number of FF's was reduced. Not to this particular subject. There was no, nor was there ever going to be, a recovery effort on the grounds and in the rubble of WTC 7.



Watch it. And says you. You've come with absolutely nothing.


You have come up with some the most patently incorrect statements I have seen in these threads. Your bringing up the Guliani decision is of particular interest since even you admit that there was no body recovery effort at WTC 7. So how is it even germane to the subject at hand?

[ZENSMACK89]

I try to ignore you but sometimes.....good God.

The company with the most floors and sq ft in WTC7 was Salomon Smith Barney.

I worked there with thousands of people doing crazy hours, most doing 80-90 hour weeks. There was no evidence of massive amounts of construction being done on our floors (read up on how a building is wired for CD). Three floors had people on them 24/7 and most days you usually had someone working to past midnight.

Explain to ME how my building was wired for controlled demolition while I worked there. How did I not see this?
What are you talking about? It didn't need to be wired on every floor. It depends on who and what they used. Do any of you ever stop with this wire every floor strawman? It doesn't have to be traditional CD to use an explosive device but if you are stuck on CD then read this...

Interview with Stacey Loizeaux

NOVA: I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.

SL: Right.

NOVA: Can you explain why?

SL: Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity. And we're dealing with Class A explosives that are embedded into concrete—and that concrete flies. So, let's say your explosive is 17,000 feet per second—you've got a piece of concrete moving at that speed when you remove it from the structure. So we try to use the minimal amount to keep down the fly of debris for a safe operation. Other than that, it comes down to cost effectiveness. You know, the more holes you have to drill, it's more labor, more time, and it's more expensive. So, obviously, the smallest amount of work is best.

NOVA: Can you describe the prep work that goes into dropping a building.

SL: Well, it depends on the structure, obviously. We've had chimneys prepared in half a day and we've had buildings that take three months also sometimes put up a curtain around the entire floor, to catch the stuff that gets through these first two layers. That's really where your liability is.

[jaydeehess]

Repeat after me
"I Zensmack89, believe that the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 was a secure and efficient way to destroy sensitive materials."

[PhantomWolf]

And you don't see any conflict between your claims and Liozeaux's statements you just posted?

[ZENSMACK89]

NO EACH OF THEM HAVE THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES
Hundreds (at least) have clearance to view or at least handle sensitive materials. These are gov't security agencies we are talking about. They would each have their own people to send into their own offices.

And how many different people can you send into a building that's not sound or could suffer a partial or even just a roof collapse. What are your choices if you are never safely going to be able to get into the building to retrieve anything?

So you really do think that demolishing a building around sensitive materials is a secure and efficient way to destroy said materials.

I'm saying it might be the best choice they could make under certain circumstances.

[ZENSMACK89]

And you don't see any conflict between your claims and Liozeaux's statements you just posted?
I said if you're stuck on traditional CD maybe you should read that. Are you stuck on CD?

[PhantomWolf]

And how many different people can you send into a building that's not sound or could suffer a partial or even just a roof collapse. What are your choices if you are never safely going to be able to get into the building to retrieve anything?

Yet you see nothing wrong with sending in a covert team of demolistion people who managed to sneak in without being seen, breaking virtually every law there is about the usage and cartage of explosives.

[PhantomWolf]

I said if you're stuck on traditional CD maybe you should read that. Are you stuck on CD?

So you are suggesting it wasn't a CD?

[ZENSMACK89]

Yet you see nothing wrong with sending in a covert team of demolistion people who managed to sneak in without being seen, breaking virtually every law there is about the usage and cartage of explosives.
I’m sorry do I need to subscribe to your specific narrative in order for you to be able to respond?

Why don't you get a mirror?

[PhantomWolf]

Well you seem to be claiming that between deciding that the building was dangerous, and it coming down, someone had it wired for demolistion then blew it up. If it wasn't a covert demolition team that had to sneak their explosives in all while avoiding the thousand and one TV camera, reporters, photographers, fire crews, and nosey public that had gathered about the area (and were later told to get out when the buildings started to come down.) You are the one claiming that it was blown up, but so far it seems to me that whoever this they was, they did it with magic.

[patchbunny]

Is that a promise?
Nah.

--Patch

[ZENSMACK89]

Well you seem to be claiming that between deciding that the building was dangerous, and it coming down, someone had it wired for demolistion then blew it up. If it wasn't a covert demolition team that had to sneak their explosives in all while avoiding the thousand and one TV camera, reporters, photographers, fire crews, and nosey public that had gathered about the area (and were later told to get out when the buildings started to come down.) You are the one claiming that it was blown up, but so far it seems to me that whoever this they was, they did it with magic.
No Phantom the OP asked for what reason would WTC7 have been brought down on purpose not exactly how.

[jaydeehess]

And how many different people can you send into a building that's not sound or could suffer a partial or even just a roof collapse. What are your choices if you are never safely going to be able to get into the building to retrieve anything?


Either the building will collapse on its own or it will not. If it does not then there will be a way to get inside eventually and retreive your materials. Those materials are secure where they are in the meantime.

The Windsor building was more severely damaged than WTC 7. The only thing that saved it from complete collapse was the conrete core columns. Yet this building was later entered and eventually torn down.

I'm saying it might be the best choice they could make under certain circumstances.

ok, modified

Repeat after me
"I Zensmack89, believe that under the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 was a secure and efficient way to destroy sensitive materials."

ETA, I'll have to wait until tomorrow to see if you will stick to your claim. midnight. tired. work tomorrow.

[BillyRayValentine]

It was in the interest of New York to blame everything on terrorists and planes.

How utterly vacuous.

And Stundie-nominated.

[pomeroo]

I said if you're stuck on traditional CD maybe you should read that. Are you stuck on CD?

It's funny--I conducted my own interview with Stacy Loizeaux and her father Mark. They were gracious enough to spend a hour explaining how a building is prepared for demolition. What can I say? You just don't get it. Try reading your own posts. She does say--doesn't she?--that a chimney can be prepared in half a day. Buildings take a bit longer.

I know your inclination is to rattle off some nonsensical instant response, but try something different for once. Pause for a moment. Read the interview with Stacy that you posted. Now, think about what she said. Reread NDBoston's post.

None of this is getting through, is it?

[PhantomWolf]

No Phantom the OP asked for what reason would WTC7 have been brought down on purpose not exactly how.

So as long as you can speculate up a motive, you don't have to deal with method and opportunity? Wow, that'd make the police's job a lot easier. Hey, let's go one better and remove the need to prove there was actually a crime... oh, wait, you already have that one covered too.

[Drs_Res]

So according to Zen, here is what we should believe:

10:05am: the south tower falls.
10:28am: The north tower falls.
5:20pm: WTC7 Falls.

In the almost 7 hours between the collapse of the second tower and the collapse of WTC7, someone decides:
1) that there is information that should be destroyed, so
2) he/she gets a hold of a demolition firm,
3) gets them to come up with a plan to conduct a CD of WTC7,
4) get the explosives out there
5) and installed while the building is on fire and then
6) blow them causing the collapse of WTC7. :boggled:

[Bell]

So according to Zen, here is what we should believe:

10:05am: the south tower falls.
10:28am: The north tower falls.
5:20pm: WTC7 Falls.

In the almost 7 hours between the collapse of the second tower and the collapse of WTC7, someone decides:
1) that there is information that should be destroyed, so
2) he/she gets a hold of a demolition firm,
3) gets them to come up with a plan to conduct a CD of WTC7,
4) get the explosives out there
5) and installed while the building is on fire and then
6) blow them causing the collapse of WTC7. :boggled:

7) announce 1 hour before the collapse that it is going to collapse

[Travis]

7) announce 1 hour before the collapse that it is going to collapse

Yes, for reasons that only the NWO knows.

[DGM]

8) Nobody notices them doing all this.
9) Clean-up crews don't see a bit of demolition evidence.

[Bell]

8) Nobody notices them doing all this.
9) Clean-up crews don't see a bit of demolition evidence.

10) All in the interest of New York.

[einsteen]

Someone at LC posted the theory that flight 93 was meant for wtc7, since it didn't touch the building the plan had to be changed, from the top would be suspicious in that case, that would even a JREF'er question the collapse.

[Gravy]

Someone at LC posted the theory that flight 93 was meant for wtc7, since it didn't touch the building the plan had to be changed, from the top would be suspicious in that case, that would even a JREF'er question the collapse.That would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

[Dave Rogers]

Someone at LC posted the theory that flight 93 was meant for wtc7, since it didn't touch the building the plan had to be changed, from the top would be suspicious in that case, that would even a JREF'er question the collapse.

Somebody posted a photo here a couple of days ago showing the Manhattan skyline pre-911. One thing that was noticeable from the photo was the way the Twin Towers stuck out far above every other building around, making them extremely easy for an inexperienced pilot to find and crash into. One of the other things that was noticeable was the way WTC7 didn't. The idea that al-Qaeda would have targeted a building that nobody outside New York had even heard of, and that was surrounded on all sides by similar sized buildings making it almost impossible to hit, is so absurd that no conspirator with half a brain cell would consider it for a moment as a cover story.

Note that this suggestion from LCF requires that the conspirators had thought about it in advance and wired the bottom of the building for demolition (as well as a range of possible impact floors near the top) just in case the plane didn't turn up and some debris from WTC1 happened to hit WTC7 and do enough damage to make a collapse look plausible. I would have thought that such a scenario is too far fetched for even an LCF'er to consider, except for the fact that I've seen what actually does get accepted over there.

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

So according to Zen, here is what we should believe:
In the almost 7 hours between the collapse of the second tower and the collapse of WTC7, someone decides:
1) that there is information that should be destroyed, so
2) he/she gets a hold of a demolition firm,
3) gets them to come up with a plan to conduct a CD of WTC7,
4) get the explosives out there
5) and installed while the building is on fire and then
6) blow them causing the collapse of WTC7. :boggled:

Unless of course it was rigged already for the sole purpose of destroying whatever needed it.

Lets also examine some time figures that Stacey uses in the documentary, wrecking ball.
Interview with Stacey Loizeaux

NOVA: I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.

SL: Right.

NOVA: Can you explain why?

SL: Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity. And we're dealing with Class A explosives that are embedded into concrete—and that concrete flies. So, let's say your explosive is 17,000 feet per second—you've got a piece of concrete moving at that speed when you remove it from the structure. So we try to use the minimal amount to keep down the fly of debris for a safe operation. Other than that, it comes down to cost effectiveness. You know, the more holes you have to drill, it's more labor, more time, and it's more expensive. So, obviously, the smallest amount of work is best.

Demo Specialist Daughter Louizex- 14 story hospital brought down in 7 seconds or in a general CD.
Wrecking Ball Discovery Channel

Another time frame:
City multi-storey blocks blown up
Two giant multi-storey tower blocks in Edinburgh have been blown up in a controlled explosion by experts.

It took less than 10 seconds the 16-storey blocks to be reduced to 18,000 tonnes of rubble.

It doesn't look good for fire in regards to WTC 7 but the speculation for motivation could go on forever.

[Travis]

Indeed the only way you could hit it is from the north and that would still be very tricky especially for United 93 which would arrive from the southwest.

[ref]

Unless of course it was rigged already for the sole purpose of destroying whatever needed it.


What is your explanation on how would they would have justified the building collapse, if none of the debris from the towers had hit the building, and fires would have never even started? It would have been a rigged building ready for demolition, but no obvious excuse whatsoever to actually demolish it without getting caught.

[Dave Rogers]

Demo Specialist Daughter Louizex- 14 story hospital brought down in 7 seconds or in a general CD.


But... the freefall time for a 47 storey building is 6 seconds, and this is 14 storeys in 7 seconds? What are you saying here - that controlled demolitions aren't at freefall speed?

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

Somebody posted a photo here a couple of days ago showing the Manhattan skyline pre-911. One thing that was noticeable from the photo was the way the Twin Towers stuck out far above every other building around, making them extremely easy for an inexperienced pilot to find and crash into.

Dave

You would have to find those towers not from the city skyline but from many miles away under the duress of a hijacking and the fear of intercept. How do you find them?
Would the pilots know their location from instrument only?



Would these pilots have the knowledge to find the target via instruments only and then the ability to fly the plane to that target?

[ref]

Here is the skyline after the impacts but before the collapses

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1363946d93665326b3.jpg

Notice, how the twin towers strike out. And notice, how difficult a target WTC7 would be. It's claimed that some third plane was supposed to hit that building.

[Dave Rogers]

Would the pilots know their location from instrument only? Would these pilots have the knowledge to find the target via instruments only and then the ability to fly the plane to that target?

Since they all had commercial pilot's licences, one might suspect that they had learned something about navigation.

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

Here is the skyline after the impacts but before the collapses
Notice, how the twin towers strike out. And notice, how difficult a target WTC7 would be. It's claimed that some third plane was supposed to hit that building.

I think it is speculation not a particular claim.

However, take that same logic and try to hit the Pentagon. Makes it a rather remarkable hit don't you think?

What is your explanation on how would they would have justified the building collapse, if none of the debris from the towers had hit the building, and fires would have never even started? It would have been a rigged building ready for demolition, but no obvious excuse whatsoever to actually demolish it without getting caught.
Remember all of those reports of van's and explosives some of those detailed here (http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/230407vans.htm). Yeah I know, the host site is questionable but the data is accurate. Or you can google it.
That would make a convenient excuse especially after the OKC fiasco. Easiest way to bring down a building seems to be a truck bomb and fire these days.
Or the FBI's working hypothesis at the WTC complex of a van packed with explosives in the basement would also help.

If none of the debris hit the towers?? I don't think physically that would be a consideration to ponder. But I understand what you are saying.

[Swing Dangler]

Since they all had commercial pilot's licences, one might suspect that they had learned something about navigation.

Dave

Of course having a licenses in the form of paperwork and having the knowledge are two separate things.

To my knowledge, the FAA hasn't released the information of where Hani received his license so at this point the data is suspect in light of the FAA lying to the 9/11 Commission.

[JimBenArm]

Of course having a licenses in the form of paperwork and having the knowledge are two separate things.
Yes, because they hand out these licenses without having to prove you have the knowledge. Of course.

Do you think before you post, or just place random words on the page, and hit "Submit"?

[Dave Rogers]

Of course having a licenses in the form of paperwork and having the knowledge are two separate things.

That's a continually retreating position. First you imply (I note that you didn't actually state it) that they didn't have enough knowledge of navigation, then you retreat to the position that it can't be proven that they did have enough knowledge of navigation. You don't have any evidence that they weren't proficient enough to navigate to within visual distance of NYC, and it's not unreasonable to suppose from their level of certification that they were capable of doing so.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

However, take that same logic and try to hit the Pentagon. Makes it a rather remarkable hit don't you think?

Show us a picture of all the similar-sized buildings in the way of hitting the Pentagon.

If none of the debris hit the towers?? I don't think physically that would be a consideration to ponder. But I understand what you are saying.

You don't think the possibility of no debris hitting WTC7 is worth considering? Given that there are probably still people in the truth movement who dispute that any debris hit WTC7 anyway?

Dave

[ref]

I think it is speculation not a particular claim.

However, take that same logic and try to hit the Pentagon. Makes it a rather remarkable hit don't you think?



The length of each outer wall at Pentagon is 921ft (280 meters).
WTC7 was 140ft (43 meters) wide.

There were no significant obstacles in the way towards Pentagon.

Here is a comparison:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1363946d93665326b3.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1363946efcc397afdb.jpg


I would say Pentagon is an easier target to hit.

[jaydeehess]

Repeat after me
"I Zensmack89, believe that under the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 was a secure and efficient way to destroy sensitive materials."
.

It appears that Zen went to bed about the same time I posted this, so to make sure he/she sees it I am reposting it.

Swing Dangler, just how difficult do you think it is to find New York city? The terrorists had taken lessons in navigation. Hunters in Minnesota can use a GPS with 10 minutes of looking at the instructions. As a school child in grade 6 we were taught how to use a compass and a map. I suppose that you subscribe to the "Arabs are too dumb to do this" mentality.


Once you are within 20 miles of the towers they stick out as the highest object on the horizon and the pilot aims the plane at them. There is then no further need for instruments at all.

WTC 7 would however be just another tall structure amoung others of similar height.

[apathoid]

You would have to find those towers not from the city skyline but from many miles away under the duress of a hijacking and the fear of intercept. How do you find them?
Would the pilots know their location from instrument only?



Would these pilots have the knowledge to find the target via instruments only and then the ability to fly the plane to that target?


First, they were pilots and knew how to read the instruments. A 757/767 instrument "T" is basically same as a Cessna's. Now since Cessnas are a bit different from 757/767's outside of the "T", and also have different handling characteristics - they had to prepare for that.....and they did. Please do some research.


http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MN00102.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MN00103.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-1.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-2.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-3.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-4.html

[Alferd_Packer]

Swing Dangler, . . . . I suppose that you subscribe to the "Arabs are too dumb to do this" mentality.


Of course, and the Japs were too nearsighted to attack Pearl Harbor, the Sioux were ignorant savages incapable of defeating Custer, the Jews deserved to be exterminated by the Nazis, yada, yada, yada.

[Swing Dangler]

First, they were pilots and knew how to read the instruments. A 757/767 instrument "T" is basically same as a Cessna's. Now since Cessnas are a bit different from 757/767's outside of the "T", and also have different handling characteristics - they had to prepare for that.....and they did. Please do some research.


http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MN00102.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MN00103.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-1.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-2.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-3.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-4.html

Can you provide empirical evidence that the hijacker pilots were trained how to navigate a 757's at altitude via the instruments?

[SDC]

Can you provide empirical evidence that the hijacker pilots were trained how to navigate a 757's at altitude via the instruments?

I suspect you don't understand what "empirical evidence" includes. "Empirical evidence" includes their training, licensing, statements by their teachers, etc. And for heaven's sake it also includes the fact that they successfully flew the things on 9/11.

If you reject this as providing empirical evidence of their ability to fly, then you might as well just out with it and say, "I won't accept any empirical evidence." Which may be the point.

I am glad no one on the juries on which I've served was like that. (1 conviction, 1 acquittal, by the way.)

I'm still brooding since learning that New Yorkers collectively and individually profited from 9/11, and therefore stuck with the "planes done it" story. Where's my cut? (Yes, I know it was S.Dangler, it was Z.Smack. I said I'm brooding and I may add sullen.)

[SDC]

I'm still brooding since learning that New Yorkers collectively and individually profited from 9/11, and therefore stuck with the "planes done it" story. Where's my cut? (Yes, I know it was S.Dangler, it was Z.Smack. I said I'm brooding and I may add sullen.)

APOLOGY! I meant to say it "wasn't" S.Dangler.

See? Brooding and sullenness are bad for my typing.

[Swing Dangler]

I would say Pentagon is an easier target to hit.
Please post a view of the skyline from when the location at which the hijackers took over the plane.

You don't think the possibility of no debris hitting WTC7 is worth considering?
No I don't think it is worth considering from the "planners" stand point. Determining the amount of damage from the debris prior to the attack is debatable, however.

You don't have any evidence that they weren't proficient enough to navigate to within visual distance of NYC, and it's not unreasonable to suppose from their level of certification that they were capable of doing so.
Yes, because they hand out these licenses without having to prove you have the knowledge.
Can you document the level of certification? Has the actual license been released into the public domain? I can say Joe Jihad has been trained in flying a 757 but providing empirical evidence to prove that is another matter.

I suppose that you subscribe to the "Arabs are too dumb to do this" mentality.
HACHOOO! So much straw in the air during allergy season!

Arabs too dumb? Of course not. I question whether the hijackers had the knowledge and training to navigate a 757 to target. Controlling a rudder, yoke, and pedals are one thing, using a navigational computer under duress is a tad different. One would have thought the flight manual left behind would have helped in that regard.

[Swing Dangler]

I suspect you don't understand what "empirical evidence" includes. "Empirical evidence" includes their training, licensing, statements by their teachers, etc. And for heaven's sake it also includes the fact that they successfully flew the things on 9/11.
I am glad no one on the juries on which I've served was like that. (1 conviction, 1 acquittal, by the way.)

I've served on 1 jury as the foreman with 1 conviction.
Training to fly the plane and training to navigate the plane from altitude are two separate issues. I'm not a trained pilot, but I was able to fly a 'Grasshoper' from the Vietnam era. Taking that same knowledge and applying it to a navigational computer in a 757/767 are separate issues.

Can you point to the license in the public domain or has that been released by the FAA?

[Corsair 115]

Would these pilots have the knowledge to find the target via instruments only and then the ability to fly the plane to that target?Yes, while there aren't a lot of windows on the flight deck of a jetliner as compared to, say, an F-16, what you can see out the windows is limited only by weather conditions. If it's a clear day, you can see to the horizon easily. And since you're flying at altitudes, you can see much further than someone standing on the ground.

Not only that, but a tiny 322x258 pixel image posted on a message board doesn't even come close to representing what you can actually see when sitting in a cockpit. (This is a refrain you'll commonly find on forums discussing combat flight sims — the level and detail of visibility on a computer screen is nowhere near to what the human eye can make out in the real world in a real cockpit, hence the various "cheats" computer flight sims have to use to make up for that.)

As to the instrumentation, that's no mystery. There are only a handful of key instruments you really need to know about — the altimeter, the artificial horizon, the vertical speed indicator, the compass, and the airspeed indicator. If you know and understand those you know enough to steer an aircraft from point A to point B. Microsoft's Flight Simulator is enough to teach you the basics of how those instruments work.

Of course, if you want to be efficient in navigating, then learning a bit about VOR and DME would be useful (and not all that difficult). And that's not even touching upon the ubiquitous GPS.

Considering that long before VOR, DME, and GPS pilots were able to navigate by nothing more than dead reckoning, being able to get an aircraft from one point to another is not some sort of task only the most expert can accomplish. It only requires a bit of research and some practice to do competently.

[Mancman]

You would have to find those towers not from the city skyline but from many miles away under the duress of a hijacking and the fear of intercept. How do you find them?
Would the pilots know their location from instrument only?



Would these pilots have the knowledge to find the target via instruments only and then the ability to fly the plane to that target?

In theory the towers could be visible from (Sqrt 415+10600)x3.85 = 404km away. Assuming a plane at 10,600m. Of course 400km visibility would be exceptional, probably impossible.

But even 10% of that visibility would be enough for the hijackers to locate Manhattan.

[Corsair 115]

In But even 10% of that visibility would be enough for the hijackers to locate Manhattan.Indeed. Read the accounts of WWII naval pilots from, say, the Battle of Midway, about how easy it was to spot burning ships from many miles away if the skies were mostly clear. One can find the occasional period photo which also demonstrates this.

[jaydeehess]

Arabs too dumb? Of course not. I question whether the hijackers had the knowledge and training to navigate a 757 to target. Controlling a rudder, yoke, and pedals are one thing, using a navigational computer under duress is a tad different. One would have thought the flight manual left behind would have helped in that regard.

Glad to have you clarify that point SD.

It is NOT rocket science to read and use the navigation equipment on an aircraft. It is rocket science, so to speak, to design, build and install navigation equipment on an aircraft. Obviously they did not have to do the later.

I daresay that even you could do it with about 1 hour's instruction.

Duress?? Why?? They expected and wanted to die. Even if they do somehow get shot down they have accomplished the task of attacking America. In fact it would have been better than simply crashingthe plane into the ground as it would mean that the POTUS would have had to order the deaths of several dozen innocent citizens. So the duress they were under IMHO would be quite a bit less than what you seem to believe it was. You seem to think that a person who has worked for months, years even, to get to the position he is in, the cockpit of a hijacked aircraft, would freeze.

Was there some thought given to making things easier for them by choosing readily identifiable targets?

Yes,yes,yes. The towers rise well above the skyline of all other structures within 20 miles. The Pentagon is surrounded by open spaces, is a unigue shape, is a very large building and sits astride a large river.
The Capitol building is also very tall and unigue with other lankmarks that point to it.

the Whitehouse is probably the most difficult target to identify from the air. It is not that tall, is surrounded by trees on several sides. It only has distinction in that it would be a very desireable target.

CIA hdqtrs is a fairly typical office building, ditto for the NSA.

The towers also have the distinction of being a the object of a previous attempt to bring them down. That would be another, albeit possibly secondary, reason to hit them.

[SDC]

Indeed. Read the accounts of WWII naval pilots from, say, the Battle of Midway, about how easy it was to spot burning ships from many miles away if the skies were mostly clear. One can find the occasional period photo which also demonstrates this.

Could someone with significant flight experience explain that: it was a clear and beautiful day; the flight from Boston only had to find the Hudson River (a very significant body of water) and turn left; and how easy it would be to do this.

I could add that the image of Guy Fawkes is meaningless in North America, but what the heck, that isn't relevant.

[Dave Rogers]

This is all a classic example of shifting the burden of proof.

Truther: The official account can't be true because the pilots couldn't have found New York.
Debunker: They were trained and licensed pilots, so it's reasonable to suppose they would have been trained in navigation.
Truther: Yes, but you can't prove they did know how to navigate.

It doesn't require proof. Unless the truther can prove that the navigation skills of the pilots were inadequate to find New York or Washington on a clear morning, there is nothing implausible about the official account in this respect. Therefore the implication that it can't be true is invalid.

Dave

[Stellafane]

I think the 9/11 TMers' pathological infatuation with WTC7 is based on the fact that it's the last shadow within which anything mysterious can possibly be hiding. All the other major facets of 9/11 -- the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and so on -- have been so thoroughly examined and explained that no one with any objective reasoning skills whatsoever can possibly believe there is any controversy around them. But WTC7 still leaves a tiny scintilla of ambiguity open. Not because there's any real evidence for a CT; there isn't any of course. But WTC7 hasn't been quite as thoroughly and "officially" explained as the rest of 9/11. So here the few remaining TMers huddle together, like T.S. Eliot's Hollow Men, in "this last of meeting places" waiting for their curious little "movement' to inevitably end not with a bang, but a whisper.

[jaydeehess]

Considering that long before VOR, DME, and GPS pilots were able to navigate by nothing more than dead reckoning, being able to get an aircraft from one point to another is not some sort of task only the most expert can accomplish. It only requires a bit of research and some practice to do competently.

In a past job I had to fly to several remote locations in the boreal forest on Ontario. No roads, to power lines, no railroads. The pilot navigated primarily by locating lakes along the way by their shape from 5000-8000 ft. On one trip by floatplane (DH Beaver), I was sitting in the right hand seat and he handed me the map and let me point out the lakes along the pencil line he had drawn on the map. Despite the forested portion looking identical everywhere and despite the fact that many lakes are similar, this was no problem.

On another trip (Cessna 206 on floats) the cloud level kept creeping down. this made locating the lakes along the way much more difficult than it was at several thousand feet. We turned back and the pilot used the compass to get back to Red Lake, Ontario.

On still another trip in a larger cargo aircraft (Cessna Caravan on wheels) the pilot had a GPS. He set the waypoints and the destination then just flew where it said to. We arrived dead in line with the runway.

Fact is that navigating is no difficult even by map and compass whereas SD would have us believe that it is the purvue of only highly trained individuals.
Besides which the men in question did indeed have training on the specific equipment used in the planes they used.

[twinstead]

This is all a classic example of shifting the burden of proof.

Truther: The official account can't be true because the pilots couldn't have found New York.
Debunker: They were trained and licensed pilots, so it's reasonable to suppose they would have been trained in navigation.
Truther: Yes, but you can't prove they did know how to navigate.

It doesn't require proof. Unless the truther can prove that the navigation skills of the pilots were inadequate to find New York or Washington on a clear morning, there is nothing implausible about the official account in this respect. Therefore the implication that it can't be true is invalid.


It really does all boil down to this. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the hijackers had adequate skills to find their targets. If this is to be contested then proper evidence, not personal incredulity, should be submitted to back it up.

[apathoid]

Training to fly the plane and training to navigate the plane from altitude are two separate issues. I'm not a trained pilot, but I was able to fly a 'Grasshoper' from the Vietnam era. Taking that same knowledge and applying it to a navigational computer in a 757/767 are separate issues.




Can you clarify what you mean by "applying it to a navigational computer" and why that would be done? I think you are overcomplicating the issue and I get the sense that you think that navigating an aircraft is like using a sextant; that is, only something a brainiac could do. It isn't. It's very simple actually, even on a 767. Tune the navaid you want to fly over, turn the course knob until you get a fly "TO" indication and a centered course deviation bar, then turn the airplane to a heading that matches the course select knob.

If anyone else besides SD is wondering how the hijackers navigated to their targets, here (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf) is an NTSB document called Study of Autopilot, Navigation Equipment, and Fuel Consumption Activity Based on United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77. Obviously UA175 and AA11's FDRs were destroyed, but it's reasonable to assume that the hijackers all used roughly the same method of navigation. It appears to me that the hijackers used some dead reckoning and some VOR navigation....nothing fancy like reprogramming the FMS, or anything like that. They also relied heavily on the autopilot, particularly heading select, altitude select(hold), level change, and IAS hold modes.....Pretty interesting reading.

[Sabrina]

Regarding the allegation that WTC7 was "demolished" to destroy the classified materials contained therein, I direct you to the following Department of Defense regulation (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/5200-1r/chapter_6.htm) which discusses in detail the safeguarding AND destruction of classified information. Of particular interest, I believe, are these:

6-300 General Policy

Everyone who has been granted access to classified information is responsible for providing protection to information and material in their possession or control. that contains such information. Classified information must be protected at all times either by storage in an approved device or facility or having it under the personal observation and control of an authorized individual. Everyone who works with classified information is personally responsible for taking proper precautions to ensure that unauthorized persons do not gain access to it.

In other words, don't leave it lying around where it has even the remotest possibility of being discovered by an individual WITHOUT the access required to look at it.

6-303 Emergency Planning

a. Plans shall be developed for the protection, removal, or destruction of classified material in case of fire, natural disaster, civil disturbance, terrorist activities, or enemy action, to minimize the risk of its compromise. The level of detail and amount of testing and rehearsal of these plans should be determined by an assessment of the risk of hostile action, natural disaster, or terrorist activity that might place the information in jeopardy.


Guess they never planned for debris from another building striking their building and setting off fires that burned for seven hours. Oh, but wait; we're the all powerful NWO, we should have anticipated this! But then again, we're supposedly incompetent enough to leave blatant clues... hmmm, the paradox rears its ugly head again.

6-700 Policy

a. Classified documents and other material shall be retained within DoD organizations only if they are required for effective and efficient operation of the organization or if their retention is required by law or regulation. Documents that are no longer required for operational purposes shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 31 and 33) and appropriate implementing directives and records schedules. Material that has been identified for destruction shall continue to be protected, as appropriate, for its classification until it is actually destroyed. Destruction of classified documents and material shall be accomplished by means that eliminate risk of reconstruction of the classified information they contain.

Note that key word there; "ELMINATE". Not "minimize", "ELIMINATE". Destruction of the building does not eliminate the possibility of reconstruction, because there is always the possibility that some of it will survive the destruction. Note the papers and light debris that survived the crash at Shanksville for an example of papers surviving destruction. It's not a guarantee, therefore it is NOT considered a viable option of destruction.

6-701 Methods and Standards

a. Classified information identified for destruction shall be destroyed completely to preclude recognition or reconstruction of the classified information in accordance with procedures and methods prescribed by the Head of the DoD Component or their designee. Methods and equipment used to routinely destroy classified information include burning, cross-cut shredding, wet-pulping, mutilation, chemical decomposition or pulverizing.

Gee, nowhere does it say controlled demolition of the building the classified material is contained in. I wonder why that is?

I have participated in the past in destruction of classified material, and will be again soon (my unit has a crapload of old papers that will have to be gone through in order to determine what's sensitive and what isn't; guess who gets THAT job). Burning requires a CONTROLLED burn wherein someone is standing there stirring the fire around with a stick to ensure that EVERYTHING is reduced to ash (I had to do this out in the field once; my NCO, soldier, and myself dug a hole and dumped the papers in there and stirred them around to ensure that everything was burned). Cross-cut shredding requires the papers be reduced to tiny bits of paper no bigger than, I believe, 1/16th of an inch by 1/8th of an inch (and in fact may be even smaller; I think the regulation might've been updated since the last time I looked at it). Wet-pulping, mutilation, chemical decomposition, or pulverizing are all more thorough than a building demolition would be.

b. Technical guidance concerning appropriate methods, equipment, and standards for the destruction of classified electronic media, processing equipment components, and the like may be obtained by contacting the Directorate for Information Systems Security, National Security Agency, Ft. Meade, MD 20755. Specifications concerning appropriate equipment and standards for destruction of other storage media may be obtained from the General Services Administration.


There you go; contact information to a directorate that can detail EXACTLY what methods are authorized to destroy classified material and can answer your questions regarding just how it MUST be destroyed. I can guarantee you demolition of a building will not be included, because there is no way to DEFINITIVELY be certain that some of the material will not survive.

Oh, and information on the Federal Records Act of 1950 (wow, fifty-one years BEFORE 9/11) can be found here. (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/fra.html) I thought this should be of particular note:

Federal records may not be destroyed-except in accordance with the procedures described in Chapter 33 of Title 44, United States Code. These procedures allow for records destruction only under the authority of a records disposition schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States.

[jberryhill]

Please post a view of the skyline from when the location at which the hijackers took over the plane.

There are quite a number of views of the Hudson River from a wide variety of places. If you can find that, you go south. If you screw up, go east, find the coastline, and head for the fat end of Long Island.

How hard is that?

[ZENSMACK89]

QUOTE=jaydeehess;2974895Repeat after me
"I Zensmack89, believe that under the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 was a secure and efficient way to destroy sensitive materials."

It appears that Zen went to bed about the same time I posted this, so to make sure he/she sees it I am reposting it.

Swing Dangler, just how difficult do you think it is to find New York city? The terrorists had taken lessons in navigation. Hunters in Minnesota can use a GPS with 10 minutes of looking at the instructions. As a school child in grade 6 we were taught how to use a compass and a map. I suppose that you subscribe to the "Arabs are too dumb to do this" mentality.


Once you are within 20 miles of the towers they stick out as the highest object on the horizon and the pilot aims the plane at them. There is then no further need for instruments at all.

WTC 7 would however be just another tall structure amoung others of similar height.





"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."

If some of you feel that this would have been a dumb move then I would appreciate someone here showing me where the present powers that be are above dumb moves.

[ZENSMACK89]

Regarding the allegation that WTC7 was "demolished" to destroy the classified materials contained therein, I direct you to the following Department of Defense regulation (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/5200-1r/chapter_6.htm) which discusses in detail the safeguarding AND destruction of classified information. Of particular interest, I believe, are these:



In other words, don't leave it lying around where it has even the remotest possibility of being discovered by an individual WITHOUT the access required to look at it.



Guess they never planned for debris from another building striking their building and setting off fires that burned for seven hours. Oh, but wait; we're the all powerful NWO, we should have anticipated this! But then again, we're supposedly incompetent enough to leave blatant clues... hmmm, the paradox rears its ugly head again.



Note that key word there; "ELMINATE". Not "minimize", "ELIMINATE". Destruction of the building does not eliminate the possibility of reconstruction, because there is always the possibility that some of it will survive the destruction. Note the papers and light debris that survived the crash at Shanksville for an example of papers surviving destruction. It's not a guarantee, therefore it is NOT considered a viable option of destruction.



Gee, nowhere does it say controlled demolition of the building the classified material is contained in. I wonder why that is?

I have participated in the past in destruction of classified material, and will be again soon (my unit has a crapload of old papers that will have to be gone through in order to determine what's sensitive and what isn't; guess who gets THAT job). Burning requires a CONTROLLED burn wherein someone is standing there stirring the fire around with a stick to ensure that EVERYTHING is reduced to ash (I had to do this out in the field once; my NCO, soldier, and myself dug a hole and dumped the papers in there and stirred them around to ensure that everything was burned). Cross-cut shredding requires the papers be reduced to tiny bits of paper no bigger than, I believe, 1/16th of an inch by 1/8th of an inch (and in fact may be even smaller; I think the regulation might've been updated since the last time I looked at it). Wet-pulping, mutilation, chemical decomposition, or pulverizing are all more thorough than a building demolition would be.



There you go; contact information to a directorate that can detail EXACTLY what methods are authorized to destroy classified material and can answer your questions regarding just how it MUST be destroyed. I can guarantee you demolition of a building will not be included, because there is no way to DEFINITIVELY be certain that some of the material will not survive.

Oh, and information on the Federal Records Act of 1950 (wow, fifty-one years BEFORE 9/11) can be found here. (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/fra.html) I thought this should be of particular note:


Yeah and these crooks always go by the book right?

[Sabrina]

*silently points to her post above about the current regulations regarding destruction of classified material*

Even if the current powers that be are idiots (which is something I don't dispute) the entire government is NOT. There would have been people who would have pointed out the possibility of the material surviving and would have recommended much cheaper ways of destruction. Hell, all they had to do was bundle the crap up in burn bags and take it to the local approved burning facility. That happens on a bi-monthly basis where I'm working now. There are at least three or four industrial-sized DoD approved classified shredders on my floor alone. It is cost-prohibitive and ineffective to demolish a building to destroy the paperwork contained therein when there are exponentially cheaper ways of doing it that do not carry the inherent risk of survival of some of the material that demolishing the building does. They'd have to drop an atom bomb directly on the building in order to completely destroy everything in it.

[SDC]

"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."

If some of you feel that this would have been a dumb move then I would appreciate someone here showing me where the present powers that be are above dumb moves.

I don't know about "dumb move," but it sure is a statement so qualified by "possible," "might have been," again "might have been," and "something," that it is pretty darned useless. Please try again with fewer qualifiers.

Oh, for heaven's sake, let me speak frankly. Stand up for your beliefs. What can happen? So some people whom you have never met will call you a chowderhead. What is scary or harmful in that? If you do not have the courage of your convictions, that what have you got? Answer: very, very little.

[Sabrina]

You're the one who keeps saying they were so concerned about completely destroying the material, Zensmack. WHY would they then risk the possibility that some of it could survive when there already exist highly approved and proven effective ways of completely destroying the paperwork that are a heck of a lot cheaper than demolishing a building.

THINK for a minute. Sheesh.

[Dave Rogers]

Even if the current powers that be are idiots (which is something I don't dispute) the entire government is NOT. There would have been people who would have pointed out the possibility of the material surviving and would have recommended much cheaper ways of destruction. Hell, all they had to do was bundle the crap up in burn bags and take it to the local approved burning facility.

I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that the local approved burning facility makes a point of not taking a look at the stuff they're burning to see whether it contains information that might incriminate the government, right? So nobody would ever know what was being destroyed? In which case, we have the following risk/cost/benefit analysis:

Putting the stuff in a burn bag and taking it to the local facility:

Cost: A few days of staff cost plus the facility cost.

Benefit: Absolute certainty of complete destruction of the information contained.

Risk: Effectively none.

Demolishing a 47-storey building with the stuff in a filing cabinet inside:

Cost: Several man-months effort rigging the building for demolition. Rebuilding cost of a 47-storey building, less any insurance payout.

Benefit: Somebody help me out here.

Risk: Significant parts of the information may survive.
People involved in the demolition may confess at a later date, prompting further investigation.
Implicates your organisation in insurance fraud, illegal use of explosives and endangering life and limb.

Does anybody here think even the Bush administration would have any difficulty making the right choice?

Dave

[JimBenArm]

You're the one who keeps saying they were so concerned about completely destroying the material, Zensmack. WHY would they then risk the possibility that some of it could survive when there already exist highly approved and proven effective ways of completely destroying the paperwork that are a heck of a lot cheaper than demolishing a building.

THINK for a minute. Sheesh.
I don't know. I had a bunch of old bank statements and credit card receipts laying around my house. Rather than shred them, I found it much more effective to burn down my house. Doesn't everyone do that?

[ZENSMACK89]

You're the one who keeps saying they were so concerned about completely destroying the material, Zensmack. WHY would they then risk the possibility that some of it could survive when there already exist highly approved and proven effective ways of completely destroying the paperwork that are a heck of a lot cheaper than demolishing a building.

THINK for a minute. Sheesh.
Oh I don't know Sabrina but maybe some of these very rules you are pointing to that are suppose to be followed and dictate whose responsibility it is for what documents weren't followed before the building became compromised. Just another thing they needed to cover-up. For instance how do you know everything was in a proper storage container or everyone had proper recovery methods in place to remove such sensitive material? If the building is destroyed it's one more thing they don't have to worry about.

[jaydeehess]

"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."

If some of you feel that this would have been a dumb move then I would appreciate someone here showing me where the present powers that be are above dumb moves.

Close, no cigar.

Now you are asserting that the order to destroy WTC 7 in order to destroy senstive docuements came from the administration of GWB. were they targeting just one office or several?

Whereas he and his people have shown themselves to be incompetant I still do not subscribe to the notion that you do, that they are complete and utter morons.

As pointed out above, the idea that the demolition of a building is a secure and efficient method of destroying senstive materials is absolutely and completely in the realm of idiocy. I expect that any sugestion to anyone on charge of the offices in question that this be done to 'protect' materials in the offices would be met with vociferous objection and likely a refusal to follow orders based on the illegality of them as outlined by the regulations posted by Sabrina.

I worked at a very remote weather station that also had a military post which did 'radio research'. Everyday there were two armed soldiers who were in charge of burning bags of already shredded docuements. They did not open the plastic bags, they were set into the incinerator as is. On one occasion that I walked too close I was informed, politely, that I was to remain 30 feet away from the small incinerator. I asked a member of the military who I knew, why it was two guys. "They watch each other" was his answer. He told me that they were to ensure that every shred was burned completely and that after the paper was all burned out they were to dump 1 liter of gasoline on the ashes just to make sure. Their work was checked on each day after they were done by an officer.
It would require military clearance just to be on the base. It was located in one of the most remote places on Earth yet these measures were being taken, BUT Zens figures that crumpling a building in the hopes that at least most of the material in question will be destroyed despite the fact that total destruction of them cannot be guaranteed nor checked for afterwards would be fine.

[jaydeehess]

If the building is destroyed it's one more thing they don't have to worry about.

ROFLMAO

They most certainly would have something to worry about Zens. The fact that it would be very possible that materials that you believe absolutly must be destroyed would be ejected out of the building during the collapse.

[SDC]

I don't know. I had a bunch of old bank statements and credit card receipts laying around my house. Rather than shred them, I found it much more effective to burn down my house. Doesn't everyone do that?

I would recommend blowing your house up, instead. Give a countdown so your next door neighbors can escape.... Hmm... Actually, fly planes into your neighbors' houses and then blow your house up.

[JimBenArm]

I would recommend blowing your house up, instead. Give a countdown so your next door neighbors can escape.... Hmm... Actually, fly planes into your neighbors' houses and then blow your house up.
This must be why they didn't pay my insurance claim...

[Disbelief]

Not that I like it, but I feel the need to stand up for Zen and SD. The OP asked for a motive, and then people start stating that they are dabbling in speculation. Well, of course they are since that was what was requested. Of course, I think that there motives are not only speculation, but rather silly as pointed out numerous time. I could propose that the leader of the evil cabal did not like the design so he decided to blow it up. Not only is it just as valid, it is also harder to debunk.

[ZENSMACK89]

Close, no cigar.

Now you are asserting that the order to destroy WTC 7 in order to destroy senstive docuements came from the administration of GWB. were they targeting just one office or several?

Whereas he and his people have shown themselves to be incompetant I still do not subscribe to the notion that you do, that they are complete and utter morons.

As pointed out above, the idea that the demolition of a building is a secure and efficient method of destroying senstive materials is absolutely and completely in the realm of idiocy. I expect that any sugestion to anyone on charge of the offices in question that this be done to 'protect' materials in the offices would be met with vociferous objection and likely a refusal to follow orders based on the illegality of them as outlined by the regulations posted by Sabrina.

I worked at a very remote weather station that also had a military post which did 'radio research'. Everyday there were two armed soldiers who were in charge of burning bags of already shredded docuements. They did not open the plastic bags, they were set into the incinerator as is. On one occasion that I walked too close I was informed, politely, that I was to remain 30 feet away from the small incinerator. I asked a member of the military who I knew, why it was two guys. "They watch each other" was his answer. He told me that they were to ensure that every shred was burned completely and that after the paper was all burned out they were to dump 1 liter of gasoline on the ashes just to make sure. Their work was checked on each day after they were done by an officer.
It would require military clearance just to be on the base. It was located in one of the most remote places on Earth yet these measures were being taken, BUT Zens figures that crumpling a building in the hopes that at least most of the material in question will be destroyed despite the fact that total destruction of them cannot be guaranteed nor checked for afterwards would be fine.
And I have worked in industries and for State Government where I was responsible from everything depending on the time and position from riding along with maintence personnel to the shredder and actually having to stand there and make sure I physically see truck loads of documents being shred to working in data centers and being responsible for things like off-site storage of data. I presently work somewhere that we have a security audit coming up and we are preparing for it.

Now if you people who seem to endorse the official version believe that there was a 10 story gash in the building and the building was known for some time before it came down that it just might come down then let me pose a scenario to you.

WTC has fire gutted floors and a 10 story gash and could come down at anytime. Possibly into the street possibly into a building next door you have know idea of when and how. Who do you send in who knows what to look for and has the security clearance to retrieve things and how long do you wait? What are your options? If you do send people in to retrieve something and the building falls on them who is liable for that?

Now what if there is something in there you really can’t afford for the wrong person to find? Or a whole bunch of things?

[SDC]

This must be why they didn't pay my insurance claim...

No, it's because you forgot to say, "Pull it!"

[Sabrina]

And I have worked in industries and for State Government where I was responsible from everything depending on the time and position from riding along with maintence personnel to the shredder and actually having to stand there and make sure I physically see truck loads of documents being shred to working in data centers and being responsible for things like off-site storage of data. I presently work somewhere that we have a security audit coming up and we are preparing for it.

Now if you people who seem to endorse the official version believe that there was a 10 story gash in the building and the building was known for some time before it came down that it just might come down then let me pose a scenario to you.

WTC has fire gutted floors and a 10 story gash and could come down at anytime. Possibly into the street possibly into a building next door you have know idea of when and how. Who do you send in who knows what to look for and has the security clearance to retrieve things and how long do you wait? What are your options? If you do send people in to retrieve something and the building falls on them who is liable for that?

Now what if there is something in there you really can’t afford for the wrong person to find? Or a whole bunch of things?

Well, if we're assuming that there were established thoughts the building might come down, I'd do exactly what was done; namely establish a collapse zone around the building and wait for it to come down. Once it HAS, and the area has been deemed stable enough by experts, then the area could be cordoned off and only authorized personnel with the necessary security clearance would be allowed to enter; alternatively, they would simply ensure that approved debris-removal personnel were allowed to enter and would guard to ensure that nothing left in an improper manner. In addition, the debris collected from this area would be sent to a separate facility away from the rest of the WTC debris and gone over with a fine tooth comb to determine what survived and who it belonged to. There would be representatives from all of the federal agencies with offices in the building present to ensure that the information went to the proper agency. Once the debris was gone over, it could be sent to the facility where the remaining Ground Zero debris was located and disposed of as necessary. Given that none of this was done, as far as any of us knows, I'd say that the likelihood of the building being demolished to protect classified info drops significantly. Especially when you take into consideration that there were exponentially more effective ways of ensuring the information was destroyed already approved by the government that cost the merest fraction of what it would take to demolish a building.

The plain fact of the matter is, the very idea of the building being demolished to destroy classified material is ludicrous, Zensmack. I'm sorry, but that's just the plain, unvarnished truth. If the powers that be loved money and power so very much, why would they choose an insanely expensive and unproven manner of destroying the information they didn't want to get out when much more cost-effective and PROVEN methods already existed?

[jaydeehess]

Now if you people who seem to endorse the official version believe that there was a 10 story gash in the building and the building was known for some time before it came down that it just might come down then let me pose a scenario to you.

WTC has fire gutted floors and a 10 story gash and could come down at anytime. Possibly into the street possibly into a building next door you have know idea of when and how. Who do you send in who knows what to look for and has the security clearance to retrieve things and how long do you wait? What are your options? If you do send people in to retrieve something and the building falls on them who is liable for that?

Now what if there is something in there you really can’t afford for the wrong person to find? Or a whole bunch of things?


There are two possibilities, the building will collapse on its own or it will not.
If it does collapse then you are no further ahead or behind than if you actually cause it to come down.
If it does not collapse then it is enterable at some later date and until that date any materials still inside are secure since first of all it would be dangerous to enter the building until engineers have shored it up to make it temporarily safe AND you have security around the building to ensure only authorized personel even get close to it.

You DO NOT send anyone into the building while it is on fire. That would only be considered for the removal of materials that were determined too important to risk destruction of. If such top priority materials were in the building it would be idiocy to reverse course and trust to a basic crap shoot whether or not they actually get destroyed by demolishing the building.

Once the building is made more safe then you send in people in hard hats, workboots, overalls, work gloves and any other safety equipment deemed neccessary and carefully remove all materials that you can. There would be a need for one of those people to be someone familiar with the layout and where the materials in question were. All would have security clearance to handle such material but need not have clearance to view it.

You do not ask a demolition team to rig the building for implosion. The building was damaged, it was twice the height of the tallest previous implosion drop, it was on fire which meant that damage pattern to the building was changing constantly, and your senario would require that it be assessed, a plan developed, rigged and dropped within 7 hours MAX. That is plain stupid, no two ways about it.

Disbelief points out that people were asked for reasons to demolish WTC 7 and this was one given. Granted, it addresses the OP. That does not mean however that it is not stupid.

[sts60]

Now what if there is something in there you really can’t afford for the wrong person to find? Or a whole bunch of things?

Let's see, I'll blow the building up so I have no control over the disposition of the incriminating evidence. I could have my secret plans fluttering all over lower Manhattan. I could have my secret atomic laser cannons landing on FDNY trucks - that would look good on the front page of the New York Post.

Or I could use some of the strict discipline used by the hundreds upon hundreds of conspiracy troops, none of whom has ever talked, to make sure that they shred the papers, wipe the disks, and dismantle the equipment beforehand.

Listen to yourself talk. You started out fairly reasonable, and now you're trying to convince us that destroying a 47-story building to destroy some papers is more secure than shredding them. You're telling us to seriously consider the notion that two of the largest buildings on Earth were not only secretly rigged for demolition and imploded by the government but also that the floors of the building were actually propelled downwards by special explosives placed in secret, because just letting them fall wasn't fast enough.

These notions are insane. You know, I don't care for this Administration either, but don't leave sanity behind in your desire to see punishment meted out, or whatever else is driving you. Stop reaching for the ridiculous when there are real problems to deal with; you're just hurting your own cause.

And speaking of dealing with reality,
Can you provide empirical evidence that the hijacker pilots were trained how to navigate a 757's at altitude via the instruments?
Swing Dangler's denial of the hijackers' ability to navigate an airliner from Boston to NYC that day borders on the pathological. "What evidence" is there that someone with a commercial pilot's license was capable of that? What sort of desperate idiocy is a question like that? Not that you even need a CPL to do it. It's trivial to do with a GPS. I could do it with a VOR and a map. On that day - selected because of the beautiful clear weather - it could have been done by dead reckoning and point-to-point navigation.

Why the desperate reaching for such foolishness? Why, if one is convinced the government was behind it, not retreat to a LIHOP position, or a modified MIHOP where the gov't facilitated what really did physically happen, or at least not go so far beyond the usual explosives claims?

In short, why are two evidently intelligent people going deeper and deeper into sheer fantasy and outright denial? It saddens me. It really does.

[Bell]

Do you think before you post, or just place random words on the page, and hit "Submit"?

Sigged :)

[JimBenArm]

Sigged :)
Totally cool!

[jaydeehess]

Excellent post sts60

Very much to the point.

[ZENSMACK89]

And again you all ignore or forget that the building was claimed to be in jeopardy of collapse a safety hazard not just to anyone attempting to go into it but also to the surrounding structures. You also forget that by evidence of the rapid heat corrosion of steel in the rubble that the buildings didn't just collapse they continued to incinerate contents after the fact. What was recovered? Does anyone know if anything?

Now some of Sabrina's last post is pretty close to what I proposed and what they did do except I offer they might not have felt they could afford to wait and see when and how it would collapse and instead went ahead and brought it down on purpose.

Now Jaydees is also close but seems to think they could have waited until the fires went out and gone in to retrieve things. Who? And is the building safe to do this? Do you believe there was a 10 story gash in the building?

Now sts60 seems to think its also safe (at some point?) go into the building and take things out and shred them. Who? When? How? Who is liable? Also I didn’t suggest that Dubya was down there himself with his finger on the button. Guliani himself might have also had an interest in bringing down the buildings being that his emergency bunker was located there.

Now if they did bring it down on purpose it might also be kept quiet for insurance reasons. Collateral damage from the tower collapse is completely no fault as opposed to taking it down on purpose. How long can you wait if you’re going to blame it on collateral damage?

[twinstead]

Sigh

[ZENSMACK89]

Now what if there is something in there you really can’t afford for the wrong person to find? Or a whole bunch of things?

Let's see, I'll blow the building up so I have no control over the disposition of the incriminating evidence. I could have my secret plans fluttering all over lower Manhattan. I could have my secret atomic laser cannons landing on FDNY trucks - that would look good on the front page of the New York Post.

Or I could use some of the strict discipline used by the hundreds upon hundreds of conspiracy troops, none of whom has ever talked, to make sure that they shred the papers, wipe the disks, and dismantle the equipment beforehand.

Listen to yourself talk. You started out fairly reasonable, and now you're trying to convince us that destroying a 47-story building to destroy some papers is more secure than shredding them. You're telling us to seriously consider the notion that two of the largest buildings on Earth were not only secretly rigged for demolition and imploded by the government but also that the floors of the building were actually propelled downwards by special explosives placed in secret, because just letting them fall wasn't fast enough.

These notions are insane. You know, I don't care for this Administration either, but don't leave sanity behind in your desire to see punishment meted out, or whatever else is driving you. Stop reaching for the ridiculous when there are real problems to deal with; you're just hurting your own cause.

And speaking of dealing with reality,
Can you provide empirical evidence that the hijacker pilots were trained how to navigate a 757's at altitude via the instruments?
Swing Dangler's denial of the hijackers' ability to navigate an airliner from Boston to NYC that day borders on the pathological. "What evidence" is there that someone with a commercial pilot's license was capable of that? What sort of desperate idiocy is a question like that? Not that you even need a CPL to do it. It's trivial to do with a GPS. I could do it with a VOR and a map. On that day - selected because of the beautiful clear weather - it could have been done by dead reckoning and point-to-point navigation.

Why the desperate reaching for such foolishness? Why, if one is convinced the government was behind it, not retreat to a LIHOP position, or a modified MIHOP where the gov't facilitated what really did physically happen, or at least not go so far beyond the usual explosives claims?

In short, why are two evidently intelligent people going deeper and deeper into sheer fantasy and outright denial? It saddens me. It really does.
What is the question of the OP?

Prove how they really did it or why would they do it?

[Sabrina]

At this point I think I'll simply sit back and watch the woo flow. *shakes head and gets the popcorn*

[Bell]

At this point I think I'll simply sit back and watch the woo flow. *shakes head and gets the popcorn*

I must read posts more careful. I thought you said

*shakes head and gets the porn*

:boxedin:

[jaydeehess]

And again you all ignore or forget that the building was claimed to be in jeopardy of collapse a safety hazard not just to anyone attempting to go into it but also to the surrounding structures. You also forget that by evidence of the rapid heat corrosion of steel in the rubble that the buildings didn't just collapse they continued to incinerate contents after the fact. What was recovered? Does anyone know if anything?

If the material recovered is sensitive what makes you think that the media would be made aware of what was or was not recovered? Why would I or anyone else here have this info?

Now some of Sabrina's last post is pretty close to what I proposed and what they did do except I offer they might not have felt they could afford to wait and see when and how it would collapse and instead went ahead and brought it down on purpose.

Which brings up the fact that doing so with any hope of having it happen they way you want it to would be pure folly in a building that is damaged and continues to suffer damage and is much larger than the largest previously dropped structure.

Now Jaydees is also close but seems to think they could have waited until the fires went out and gone in to retrieve things. Who? And is the building safe to do this? Do you believe there was a 10 story gash in the building?

What do you want? Their names? I already told you who. The agencies in question are security agencies. The CIA for eg. has many people for whom this would not be a problem. Why do you assume that the only people available would be 90 pound clerks and IT geeks?

Yes they can wait for the building to either collapse, in which case you are no further ahead or behind than if you attempt to drop the building deliberatly, OR, you can wait out the fires and go in later. I have already outlined this above.

Now sts60 seems to think its also safe (at some point?) go into the building and take things out and shred them. Who? When? How? Who is liable? Also I didn’t suggest that Dubya was down there himself with his finger on the button. Guliani himself might have also had an interest in bringing down the buildings being that his emergency bunker was located there.

I highly doubt that any CIA manager (for eg.) would allow an order from GWB to do what you propose. Guliani has no jurisdiction over the CIA or any other Federal agency and I cannot see any engineer in his service taking on the job of destroying the building in the fashion you propose.

Now if they did bring it down on purpose it might also be kept quiet for insurance reasons. Collateral damage from the tower collapse is completely no fault as opposed to taking it down on purpose. How long can you wait if you’re going to blame it on collateral damage?

If the building was dropped because it was going to collapse or because it was danger then there is no effect on the insurance, it is still no fault of the owners. The insurance co. is not going to demand that the building be allowed to stand if engineers have determined it has to come down. If they did and someone was hurt then THEY would be liable for that. However such a drop would absolutly never be considered to be done in 7 hours in a damaged building that was on fire and was 47 freakin stories tall.

[sts60]

What is the question of the OP?

Prove how they really did it or why would they do it?
Of course we know the OP question: "why?"

The answer is "no sane reason".

Of course, there is also no credible evidence it was done.

Moreover, there were unambiguous collapse indicators beforehand: heavy structural damage, heavy unchecked fire, a compromised fire-suppression system, no fire attack, the building directly observed to be coming out of line by FDNY personnel, and of course the creaking, etc. sounds. The building was expected to fall, and it did, and there were no explosives required.

Now sts60 seems to think its also safe (at some point?) go into the building and take things out and shred them.

No, of course not - I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

Are you being dense on purpose? Any such incriminating materials would have been shredded prior to the actual event.

Do you even think at all about what you're saying anymore? There is this giant conspiracy capable of planning all these attacks, planting all these cover stories, and stealthily preparing three occupied office buildings for controlled demolition, but can't think about shredding papers and CDs beforehand in a building they knew they had to abandon? Or they had to keep all this incriminating stuff around until after the building fell?

Who? When? How? Who is liable? Also I didn’t suggest that Dubya was down there himself with his finger on the button. Guliani himself might have also had an interest in bringing down the buildings being that his emergency bunker was located there.

Or maybe The Donald did it. Or Cthulu. As long as you're frantically waving your hands in support of this insane premise, you might as well really go for it.

[ZENSMACK89]

If the material recovered is sensitive what makes you think that the media would be made aware of what was or was not recovered? Why would I or anyone else here have this info?

No someone suggested that to bring the building down is stupid because it might scatter contents to “all corners if the earth”. Did this happen? Did someone find something? Anything?

Which brings up the fact that doing so with any hope of having it happen they way you want it to would be pure folly in a building that is damaged and continues to suffer damage and is much larger than the largest previously dropped structure.

And? Waiting for it to fall on its own is better?

What do you want? Their names? I already told you who. The agencies in question are security agencies. The CIA for eg. has many people for whom this would not be a problem. Why do you assume that the only people available would be 90 pound clerks and IT geeks?

I’m sorry I didn’t know CIA agents have staff immune to building collapse. Do they also have security clearance to happen upon the info of all the other agencies in the building?

Yes they can wait for the building to either collapse, in which case you are no further ahead or behind than if you attempt to drop the building deliberately, OR, you can wait out the fires and go in later. I have already outlined this above.

This doesn’t explain away anything I outlined. Just because the fire goes out does that mean the building is safe to enter? It could be on the verge of collapse for a year.

I highly doubt that any CIA manager (for eg.) would allow an order from GWB to do what you propose. Guliani has no jurisdiction over the CIA or any other Federal agency and I cannot see any engineer in his service taking on the job of destroying the building in the fashion you propose.

And again we’re not exactly talking about people who play by the rules or make the best decisions. For instance why was the emergency bunker built so close to the WTC towers a known terrorist target?

If the building was dropped because it was going to collapse or because it was danger then there is no effect on the insurance, it is still no fault of the owners. The insurance co. is not going to demand that the building be allowed to stand if engineers have determined it has to come down. If they did and someone was hurt then THEY would be liable for that. However such a drop would absolutely never be considered to be done in 7 hours in a damaged building that was on fire and was 47 freakin stories tall.


How do you prove that to the insurance companies? Did they make a complete inspection of the building while it was still on fire to determine this was necessary? Good luck trying to collect on that one. It took them 5 years as it is.

[ZENSMACK89]

Of course we know the OP question: "why?"

The answer is "no sane reason".

What do you know about sane?

Of course, there is also no credible evidence it was done.

Says you.

Moreover, there were unambiguous collapse indicators beforehand: heavy structural damage, heavy unchecked fire, a compromised fire-suppression system, no fire attack, the building directly observed to be coming out of line by FDNY personnel, and of course the creaking, etc. sounds. The building was expected to fall, and it did, and there were no explosives required.


So they knew exactly when and how it would fall?


No, of course not - I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

Are you being dense on purpose? Any such incriminating materials would have been shredded prior to the actual event.

Are you dense? Did you read what I wrote? What if WTC7 wasn't part of the original plan and wasn't meant to be damaged by the towers. Why would they have shred anything before hand?

Do you even think at all about what you're saying anymore? There is this giant conspiracy capable of planning all these attacks, planting all these cover stories, and stealthily preparing three occupied office buildings for controlled demolition, but can't think about shredding papers and CDs beforehand in a building they knew they had to abandon? Or they had to keep all this incriminating stuff around until after the building fell?

Do you read? Try again.

Or maybe The Donald did it. Or Cthulu. As long as you're frantically waving your hands in support of this insane premise, you might as well really go for it.


Nothing huh?

[SDC]

No someone suggested that to bring the building down is stupid because it might scatter contents to “all corners if the earth”. Did this happen? Did someone find something? Anything?

[... cut, cut, cut ...]

How do you prove that to the insurance companies? Did they make a complete inspection of the building while it was still on fire to determine this was necessary? Good luck trying to collect on that one. It took them 5 years as it is.

I'm sorry but, Z.Smack, now it looks like you are arguing against the idea of intentional demolition of WTC 7. I'm really confused. Could you please take a clear stand? Here's mine: the damned thing collapsed because planes hit WTC 1&2, which eventually collapsed, and a whole bunch of stuff landed on 7, damaging it and starting fires which lasted 7 hours or so. The damage and fires were made worse, it seems, but the unusual construction of the thing many years before, and the fuel stored in the building. Various companies and government agencies were lucky enough not to lose any people, and in addition, since this is the 21st century, important data, files, etc., could be reconstructed or had been backed up elsewhere.

How's that?

[jaydeehess]

No someone suggested that to bring the building down is stupid because it might scatter contents to “all corners if the earth”. Did this happen? Did someone find something? Anything?

Not that I know of. That suggests that there wasn't anything to lose in the offices. gee if there wasn't then that completely destroys your arguement.



And? Waiting for it to fall on its own is better?

No, it is no better or worse, do you have a reading comprehension problem. It also does not risk the lives of the supposed demolition people.



I’m sorry I didn’t know CIA agents have staff immune to building collapse. Do they also have security clearance to happen upon the info of all the other agencies in the building?

I already explained that they would go in at a later date once the building had been shored up enough to make it safe to do so.
why would agents even go to the offices of the other agencies? If there was something in a corridor then they would hand it back to the proper agency. Having them find it would be a lot better than having you find it on the street.

I do note that you believe that there are experts in building demolition that are immune to building collapse.

This doesn’t explain away anything I outlined. Just because the fire goes out does that mean the building is safe to enter? It could be on the verge of collapse for a year.

Any building that is still standing can be made safe temporarily by adding supports.

And again we’re not exactly talking about people who play by the rules or make the best decisions. For instance why was the emergency bunker built so close to the WTC towers a known terrorist target?

Yes having the office there was a mistake. It was roundly critized when it was installed. That was Guliani. Guliani has no jurisdiction to order the destruction of a building while it is on fire. No explosive expert or engineer would attempt this and many would laugh in the face of anyone who suggested it.


How do you prove that to the insurance companies? Did they make a complete inspection of the building while it was still on fire to determine this was necessary? Good luck trying to collect on that one. It took them 5 years as it is.

Well you have a point I suppose. If two complete fools stood in line and one said "drop the building today" and the next said "Ok, I'll go in and do it" and they could not show that it was neccessary for the safety of the area then I suppose the insurance co. might have a problem with it. Wel, at least Silverstein is off the hook then right? after all it was his co. that was to make the insurance claim so one would expect that he would have a problem with anything that would jepordize that claim. (yeah, yeah, I know all he said was "you really really have to keep this hush hush and not let it out that we did this. Ooooh , I don't know why I let you guys convince me of this whole scheme."

[jaydeehess]

So they knew exactly when and how it would fall?


No, and neither would anyone loading explosives into the building that day with only seven hours to plan and implement a drop.

[jaydeehess]

Are you dense? Did you read what I wrote? What if WTC7 wasn't part of the original plan and wasn't meant to be damaged by the towers. Why would they have shred anything before hand?

Because this was the day of the big event. All incriminating docuements would be disposed of prior to 9/11/01. You really, really do not want these things left around any longer than neccessary and that would be either at midnight the day before or at daybreak that day. there would be zero reason to have any incriminating docuements around on 9/11.

If it is equipment you are worried about that can be removed as soon as it is no longer needed. For instance when WTC 1 fell all remote equipment for the demolitions would be carried out. Most of it would fit in a breifcase or backpack.

[sts60]

What do you know about sane?
*Chuckle* Hey, I'm no psychologist. But I'm also not the one proposing that a 47-story building was explosively demolished to destroy some papers. Any reasonable person would say "Uh... why not just shred them?"

Says you.
Not just me. There is simply no evidence of the extensive building work - months of work - required to gut, cut and rig up such a large building for controlled demolition.

So they knew exactly when and how it would fall?
No, of course not, and I neither said nor implied any such thing. The collapse indicators mean that the building is in danger of collapse with little or no further warning. It doesn't mean it must collapse, nor that it will do so at a given time. FDNY simply knew that the building wasn't safe to be in or around.

Are you dense? Did you read what I wrote? What if WTC7 wasn't part of the original plan and wasn't meant to be damaged by the towers. Why would they have shred anything before hand?

I apologize if I missed you making the claim that WTC7 "wasn't part of the original plan".

Of course, that makes your CD scenario even more ludicrous. If the building was never meant to be destroyed, there is no reason for it be prepared for demolition. (You know, all that stealthy gutting the inside of the building, etc.)

Do you read? Try again.

Right, again, sorry I missed the part where you proposed WTC 7 wasn't meant to be destroyed in the original plan. It was just stealthily gutted and prepared for demolition because... well, just because.

The all-powerful conspirators decided to destroy a 110-story skyscraper next to their building, but - silly conspirators! - forgot to consider that this might have unfortunate effects on their building.

Nothing huh?

Correct. Nothing you're saying makes any sense any more. I'm genuinely sorry to see that. Good luck.

[UserGoogol]

It always makes me laugh when truthers like mjd, Zensmack or MaGZ push for LIHOP and pretend they are not MIHOP, but still think WTC7 was a controlled demolition...

I mean, "They" had to be involved in the attacks if they wanted to demolish WTC7 inconspicuously. "They" had to know the precise date the attacks would occur and how the planes would hit the towers, and "They" had to know of any problems that would occur that might have delayed the attacks (unless you believe demolition charges can be set in a few hours in a burning building.).

The 9/11 Al qaeda plot and the WTC7 demolition plots are too precise and complicated to be simultaneously be going on without any of the two parties explicitly knowing of one an other.

Little known fact: all buildings in New York City built before 1990 are lined with explosives, ready to be blown up at the briefest notice. It was one of Mayor Koch's little pet projects to try to modernize the city, to allow new construction without the cost of private sector demolitions. Unfortunately, it was ultimately cut when Dinkins came into office and tried to balance the budget, but the cost of removing the explosives entirely was ultimately too expensive, so they ended up having to keep the dynamite in and the system ended up bouncing around between various levels of government until it got to the federal government in 1999, who brought it into a comprehensive organization in the Department of Housing and Urban Development that combined several city's explosive systems (Chicago and Los Angeles also have explosive systems, for instance, although they use a different kind of explosive) into one agency. When George W. Bush became president, Cheney and some other high level executives drafted a plan whereby any terrorist attack in an area with a dynamite system would be followed up by blowing up a second building that was already evacuated so as to make the attack even more severe, thus making it even easier for the government to take advantage of the situation. Presumably, World Trade Center 7 was used in this manner.

Or something like that. :)

[ETA: I wrote this without realizing this thread was six pages long, and has gone into discussing other issues, but still.]

[pomeroo]

I think it is speculation not a particular claim.

However, take that same logic and try to hit the Pentagon. Makes it a rather remarkable hit don't you think?



Hey, Swingie, when you were peddling this snake oil on SLC, I posted a link to Giulio Bernacchia's paper. Remember? Yup, he destroyed your fantasy totally. Unfortunately for you and your fellow liars, the paper is still available on 911myths.com, in the section "Investigations, more."

[pomeroo]

Little known fact: all buildings in New York City built before 1990 are lined with explosives, ready to be blown up at the briefest notice. It was one of Mayor Koch's little pet projects to try to modernize the city, to allow new construction without the cost of private sector demolitions. Unfortunately, it was ultimately cut when Dinkins came into office and tried to balance the budget, but the cost of removing the explosives entirely was ultimately too expensive, so they ended up having to keep the dynamite in and the system ended up bouncing around between various levels of government until it got to the federal government in 1999, who brought it into a comprehensive organization in the Department of Housing and Urban Development that combined several city's explosive systems (Chicago and Los Angeles also have explosive systems, for instance, although they use a different kind of explosive) into one agency. When George W. Bush became president, Cheney and some other high level executives drafted a plan whereby any terrorist attack in an area with a dynamite system would be followed up by blowing up a second building that was already evacuated so as to make the attack even more severe, thus making it even easier for the government to take advantage of the situation. Presumably, World Trade Center 7 was used in this manner.

Or something like that. :)

[ETA: I wrote this without realizing this thread was six pages long, and has gone into discussing other issues, but still.]


Believe it or not, when I was new to the debunking game, a psycho on a libertarian discussion forum was making this exact claim, that Manhattan skyscrapers were wired with explosives, and he was serious. Imagine living inside that head! All the brightly-colored bats and the loud buzzing...

[pomeroo]

Please post a view of the skyline from when the location at which the hijackers took over the plane.


No I don't think it is worth considering from the "planners" stand point. Determining the amount of damage from the debris prior to the attack is debatable, however.


Can you document the level of certification? Has the actual license been released into the public domain? I can say Joe Jihad has been trained in flying a 757 but providing empirical evidence to prove that is another matter.


HACHOOO! So much straw in the air during allergy season!

Arabs too dumb? Of course not. I question whether the hijackers had the knowledge and training to navigate a 757 to target. Controlling a rudder, yoke, and pedals are one thing, using a navigational computer under duress is a tad different. One would have thought the flight manual left behind would have helped in that regard.


Your worst nightmare, Swingie:

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

Your evil movement is nearly dead. The good guys are winning.

[T.A.M.]

So let me get this straight...

The new theory is that the evil doers had WTC7 CDed so as to avoid further loss of life and the chance of damage to other buildings if allowed to fall via normal collapse, BUT...They decided not to tell anyone, because if they did they wouldn't get the insurance money???

Am I right? Where did I leave that damn Occam's Razor??

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

Can you provide empirical evidence that the hijacker pilots were trained how to navigate a 757's at altitude via the instruments?

This has to be one of the dumbest things I have seen from a CT in weeks, and that's saying something considering the density of the comments about this place and the other boards I follow.

There is a little thing onboard a Boeing 767/757 called an a-u-t-o-p-i-l-o-t. This flies the plane where you desire to go all without touching the yoke or rudders at all. Just dial in the destination, sit back and enjoy the view. The DFR's recovered from Flight 77 and 93 show that the Hijackers made extensive use of the Autopilot, why then assume that those on Flights 11 and 175 didn't?

And as for the comment about them fearing they'd be intercepted, what a laugh? Why would they fear that? Firstly, how many hijacked aircraft have been shot down in history? Secondly, even if the USAF did decide to shot them down, why would that worry them? Flight 93 makes it quite obvious that they weren't predesposed to having to hit their targets. If they had really been of a mind too they could have flown the plane in such a way as to keep the passangers off their feet and still attempted to hit their target, instead they just crashed it right there. If they were willing to crash the plane anywhere if threatened, why would they fear being intercepted and shoot down?

You CTs really need to engage your brain before opening your mouths, what you are saying just keeps getting stupider.

[BillyRayValentine]

Are you dense? Did you read what I wrote? What if WTC7 wasn't part of the original plan and wasn't meant to be damaged by the towers. Why would they have shred anything before hand?

Let me get this straight. The bad guys who plotted to destroy the towers kept documentary evidence of their plot, and stored said evidence in super secret files at WTC 7, a location only a stone's throw from the towers.

Once WTC 7 was damaged, they said "Hey, our super secret files, which we decided to store 300 feet from the two 1,100 foot towers we were blowing up, might be discovered. We'd better blow up WTC 7 as well. At least they'll have to sift through a big pile of rubble before, quite possibly, still finding our super secret files."

In a nutshell, you are saying that the perpetrators of the largest act of mass murder in our nation's history not only allowed evidence of their act to exist, but they allowed it to exist at WTC 7, a location clearly at risk given the size of the towers.

Actually, I was going to go on, but this nonsense is just too ridiculous. It takes idiocy to a whole new level. All I can say is Woooo-ow.

[Dave Rogers]

The new theory is that the evil doers had WTC7 CDed so as to avoid further loss of life and the chance of damage to other buildings if allowed to fall via normal collapse, BUT...They decided not to tell anyone, because if they did they wouldn't get the insurance money???


I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at the emergency meeting where somebody said, "OK, we've got a 47-storey building that might collapse at any moment, and by the way it's on fire. Let's send a bunch of guys carrying high explosives into an unstable building that's also a raging inferno... to avoid further loss of life."

Dave

[sts60]

I guess I missed where ZENSMACK89 said whether WTC 7 was supposed to be blown up in the original plan or not.

In the first case, we have to believe that blowing up a 47-story building is preferable to simply shredding documents. In the second case, we have to believe that the conspirators would run their evil operations in the shadow of a 110-story skyscraper they planned to strike with a jetliner and then destroy with explosives; that they would keep incriminating records all the way through this operation; and that, failing to foresee they might have some problems, sent people into the heavily damaged, burning building with a few hundred kilograms of explosives, and successfully rigged this towrering inferno for controlled demolition in about half a day.

Either version is sheer raving lunacy.

[jaydeehess]

Let me get this straight. The bad guys who plotted to destroy the towers kept documentary evidence of their plot, and stored said evidence in super secret files at WTC 7, a location only a stone's throw from the towers.

Once WTC 7 was damaged, they said "Hey, our super secret files, which we decided to store 300 feet from the two 1,100 foot towers we were blowing up, might be discovered. We'd better blow up WTC 7 as well. At least they'll have to sift through a big pile of rubble before, quite possibly, still finding our super secret files."

In a nutshell, you are saying that the perpetrators of the largest act of mass murder in our nation's history not only allowed evidence of their act to exist, but they allowed it to exist at WTC 7, a location clearly at risk given the size of the towers.

Actually, I was going to go on, but this nonsense is just too ridiculous. It takes idiocy to a whole new level. All I can say is Woooo-ow.

I have said before that it would appear that to some CT's the "Keystone Cops" silent films must look like docuementaries.

[ZENSMACK89]

Let me get this straight. The bad guys who plotted to destroy the towers kept documentary evidence of their plot, and stored said evidence in super secret files at WTC 7, a location only a stone's throw from the towers.


Really? Who claimed that? Tell me more.

Once WTC 7 was damaged, they said "Hey, our super secret files, which we decided to store 300 feet from the two 1,100 foot towers we were blowing up, might be discovered. We'd better blow up WTC 7 as well. At least they'll have to sift through a big pile of rubble before, quite possibly, still finding our super secret files."

Wow! Do you have this on tape? This is some theory of yours. Did they say anything about also locating their emergency bunker only 300 feet away from the last time the terrorist attacked?

In a nutshell, you are saying that the perpetrators of the largest act of mass murder in our nation's history not only allowed evidence of their act to exist, but they allowed it to exist at WTC 7, a location clearly at risk given the size of the towers.

If it was so clearly at risk then why was the emergency bunker located there?

Actually, I was going to go on, but this nonsense is just too ridiculous. It takes idiocy to a whole new level. All I can say is Woooo-ow.


You make up a story and then declare it ridiculous? What's the point?

[ZENSMACK89]

Either version is sheer raving lunacy.

If you say so. It is your story.

[sts60]

If you say so. It is your story.

"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."

You claimed the possibility WTC 7 was destroyed to eliminate incriminating materials.

Either it was planned to be destroyed ahead of time in order to get rid of the incriminating documentation, rather than simply shredding it, or it was not planned and the site was presumed to be safe - despite the planned destruction of the neighboring 110-story building - and therefore the conspirators sent in personnel with hundreds of pounds of explosives into a damaged, burning 47-story building and successfully prepared it for controlled demolition in a few hours. Or, alternatively, the demolition was not planned but the building was prepared for demolition anyway - again with nobody noticing.

Your story. I'm just pointing the insanity of any of its versions.

[jaydeehess]

"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."


Really? Who claimed that? Tell me more.
It was your supposition Zens, you tell us.



Wow! Do you have this on tape? This is some theory of yours. Did they say anything about also locating their emergency bunker only 300 feet away from the last time the terrorist attacked?If it was so clearly at risk then why was the emergency bunker located there?[/

A dramatization of your supposition Zens.
the bunker was located in WTC 7, that was a mistake. What does this have to do with your supposition, do try to be specific.


You make up a story and then declare it ridiculous? What's the point?

You made it up and now you attempt to distance yourself from it.

[ZENSMACK89]

"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."

You claimed the possibility WTC 7 was destroyed to eliminate incriminating materials.

Either it was planned to be destroyed ahead of time in order to get rid of the incriminating documentation, rather than simply shredding it, or it was not planned and the site was presumed to be safe - despite the planned destruction of the neighboring 110-story building - and therefore the conspirators sent in personnel with hundreds of pounds of explosives into a damaged, burning 47-story building and successfully prepared it for controlled demolition in a few hours. Or, alternatively, the demolition was not planned but the building was prepared for demolition anyway - again with nobody noticing.

Your story. I'm just pointing the insanity of any of its versions.

No your story not mine.

Failed to foresee? It's already proven they failed to foresee by placing the emergency bunker in WTC7. Where did I say they had to go in with a few hundred kilograms of explosives"? You seem to think they can go in and out of a building all day and all night that's on the verge of collapse to get out documents that need to be shred or data that needs to be secured. Did they retrieve anything in the eight hours the building stood? You also seem to think the building can fall from fire on a few floors and supposed structural damage to one side but now the building all of sudden is going to need "few hundred kilograms of explosives" in addition to this damage to get it to fall. Why is that?

I'm pointing out possible scenarios of why they took it down not exactly how. That was the OP.

Here's another twist.

Let's say for argument sake no inside job. But the terrorist like they are known to do followed up the plane attack with car bombs or explosive devices they were somehow able to get in the towers or in the street. Let's say some people even reported hearing secondary explosions and maybe even vans with explosives in them.

Now read this…

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=auaBMcR5LnA4&refer=top_world_news

"Port Authority Found Liable in 1993 WTC Bombing (Update2)
Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) -- A New York jury said the owner of the World Trade Center was legally responsible in the 1993 terrorist bombing that killed six people and injured 1,000.

The civil trial jury today found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 68 percent liable for the attack, in which terrorists detonated explosives in a rented van in the 400-car garage under the former twin towers. The terrorists were 32 percent liable, the jury said."

That's right. Port Authority 68% liable Terrorists 32% liable. Are you telling me there is no interest from anyone to downplay or dismiss out of hand secondary explosions? Planes make it no fault.

Now how fast did Silverstein collect on WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, the buildings he held leases on?

Let's read....

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/05/world-trade-center-insurance-settlement.php

World Trade Center insurance settlement reached
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Almost six years later. And what were they all so concerned with…?

“Spitzer's office said that the settlement, which was the biggest obstacle to reconstruction at the World Trade Center site, "will save additional tens of millions in legal costs and allow the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties to focus on rebuilding at Ground Zero." Prior litigation has cost Silverstein and the insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars. “

Now what if WTC7 is on fire and severely damaged and maybe about to fall on another building which will also be costly. The building has severe damage to one side that maybe was caused by the falling towers or maybe more damage from an explosive device. Or better yet maybe the building might have been breaking some fire codes …

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B 63
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 20, 2001
New York Times

“Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.”

Some people might consider taking it down before the building collapses into another building or causes an additional disaster but there’s a problem. You don’t have the time to inspect for sure if it’s going to fall to determine that. If you do purposely take it down and admit to it the insurance companies might dispute that it was necessary. If you don’t take it down it might be determined it was damaged from more then just fire and collateral damage from the plane attack on the towers in which case the Port Authority might be held liable or some broken fire codes discovered partly to blame. An added factor to all of this is an unsecured building with 10 stories of broken open windows and possible documents blowing out those windows from the Secret Service, the CIA, the SEC, etc. etc. and you can’t go in and retrieve anything quickly because it’s on fire and might collapse at any time.

What do you do? Whatever it is you better decide quick.


An added note to all of this is the Airlines and the box cutter story.

February 11, 2004: Hijackers Said to Use Short Knives, Not Box Cutters
It is reported the 9/11 Commission now believes that the hijackers used short knives instead of box cutters. The New York Observer comments, “Remember the airlines’ first reports, that the whole job was pulled off with box cutters? In fact, investigators for the commission found that box cutters were reported on only one plane [Flight 77]. In any case, box cutters were considered straight razors and were always illegal. Thus the airlines switched their story and produced a snap-open knife of less than four inches at the hearing. This weapon falls conveniently within the aviation-security guidelines pre-9/11.” [NEW YORK OBSERVER, 2/11/2004] It was publicly revealed in late 2002 that box cutters were illegal on 9/11. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 11/11/2002]

And guns…

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26641
FAA covering up 9-11 gun,
whistleblower agent says
Claims feds, American Airlines fear lawsuits; Flight 11 victims' families want Hill probe

And bombs…

(9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Passenger Jeremy Glick Describes Hijackers, Bomb
“Glick says the hijackers claimed to have a bomb, which looked like a box with something red around it. Family members immediately call emergency 9-1-1 on another line.” - [TORONTO SUN, 9/16/2001; PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 10/28/2001; LONGMAN, 2002, PP. 143; MSNBC, 7/30/2002]

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/911.call/index.html
Hijacked passenger called 911 on cell phone
September 11, 2001 Posted: 11:35 PM EDT (0335 GMT)
"We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Cramer quoted the man from a transcript of the call. The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said.

All of these stories were downplayed to reduce liability of the FAA and the Airlines. Everything that is downplayed or omitted in an investigation is just added fuel to conspiracy theories.

[jaydeehess]

You seem to think they can go in and out of a building all day and all night that's on the verge of collapse to get out documents that need to be shred or data that needs to be secured. Did they retrieve anything in the eight hours the building stood? ?

Once again you what others have said goes sailing right over your head.

Any incriminating docuements would have been shredded hours, days or weeks before 9/11/01. There would be an extreme requirement to keep any and all alleged docuementation concerning this secure and to destroy any and all that were no longer needed. It would be of the utmost idiocy to have any such docuemantation withing a few hundred feet of the 110 storey structures that one was about to demolish anyway.
Once again I ask, what significance to this is the fact that the emergency office was located so close? Again, be specific I am getting a chill from all of your handwaving.

[jaydeehess]

What do you do? Whatever it is you better decide quick.


According to you one then submits to panic and does patently stupid things. Hmm, not the usual picture of secret spooks but I guess they all can't be James bond.

[jaydeehess]

Let's say for argument sake no inside job. But the terrorist like they are known to do followed up the plane attack with car bombs or explosive devices they were somehow able to get in the towers or in the street. Let's say some people even reported hearing secondary explosions and maybe even vans with explosives in them.

No evidence that this did take place however if there were any solid evidence of explosives being used it would indeed be the more obvious conclusion.
Perhaps there is hope for you.

[Swing Dangler]

No your story not mine.

Failed to foresee? It's already proven they failed to foresee by placing the emergency bunker in WTC7. Where did I say they had to go in with a few hundred kilograms of explosives"? You seem to think they can go in and out of a building all day and all night that's on the verge of collapse to get out documents that need to be shred or data that needs to be secured. Did they retrieve anything in the eight hours the building stood? You also seem to think the building can fall from fire on a few floors and supposed structural damage to one side but now the building all of sudden is going to need "few hundred kilograms of explosives" in addition to this damage to get it to fall. Why is that?

I'm pointing out possible scenarios of why they took it down not exactly how. That was the OP.

Here's another twist.

Let's say for argument sake no inside job. But the terrorist like they are known to do followed up the plane attack with car bombs or explosive devices they were somehow able to get in the towers or in the street. Let's say some people even reported hearing secondary explosions and maybe even vans with explosives in them.

Now read this…

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=auaBMcR5LnA4&refer=top_world_news

"Port Authority Found Liable in 1993 WTC Bombing (Update2)
Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) -- A New York jury said the owner of the World Trade Center was legally responsible in the 1993 terrorist bombing that killed six people and injured 1,000.

The civil trial jury today found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 68 percent liable for the attack, in which terrorists detonated explosives in a rented van in the 400-car garage under the former twin towers. The terrorists were 32 percent liable, the jury said."

That's right. Port Authority 68% liable Terrorists 32% liable. Are you telling me there is no interest from anyone to downplay or dismiss out of hand secondary explosions? Planes make it no fault.

Now how fast did Silverstein collect on WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, the buildings he held leases on?

Let's read....

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/05/world-trade-center-insurance-settlement.php

World Trade Center insurance settlement reached
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Almost six years later. And what were they all so concerned with…?

“Spitzer's office said that the settlement, which was the biggest obstacle to reconstruction at the World Trade Center site, "will save additional tens of millions in legal costs and allow the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties to focus on rebuilding at Ground Zero." Prior litigation has cost Silverstein and the insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars. “

Now what if WTC7 is on fire and severely damaged and maybe about to fall on another building which will also be costly. The building has severe damage to one side that maybe was caused by the falling towers or maybe more damage from an explosive device. Or better yet maybe the building might have been breaking some fire codes …

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B 63
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 20, 2001
New York Times

“Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.”

Some people might consider taking it down before the building collapses into another building or causes an additional disaster but there’s a problem. You don’t have the time to inspect for sure if it’s going to fall to determine that. If you do purposely take it down and admit to it the insurance companies might dispute that it was necessary. If you don’t take it down it might be determined it was damaged from more then just fire and collateral damage from the plane attack on the towers in which case the Port Authority might be held liable or some broken fire codes discovered partly to blame. An added factor to all of this is an unsecured building with 10 stories of broken open windows and possible documents blowing out those windows from the Secret Service, the CIA, the SEC, etc. etc. and you can’t go in and retrieve anything quickly because it’s on fire and might collapse at any time.

What do you do? Whatever it is you better decide quick.


An added note to all of this is the Airlines and the box cutter story.

February 11, 2004: Hijackers Said to Use Short Knives, Not Box Cutters
It is reported the 9/11 Commission now believes that the hijackers used short knives instead of box cutters. The New York Observer comments, “Remember the airlines’ first reports, that the whole job was pulled off with box cutters? In fact, investigators for the commission found that box cutters were reported on only one plane [Flight 77]. In any case, box cutters were considered straight razors and were always illegal. Thus the airlines switched their story and produced a snap-open knife of less than four inches at the hearing. This weapon falls conveniently within the aviation-security guidelines pre-9/11.” [NEW YORK OBSERVER, 2/11/2004] It was publicly revealed in late 2002 that box cutters were illegal on 9/11. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 11/11/2002]

And guns…

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26641
FAA covering up 9-11 gun,
whistleblower agent says
Claims feds, American Airlines fear lawsuits; Flight 11 victims' families want Hill probe

And bombs…

(9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Passenger Jeremy Glick Describes Hijackers, Bomb
“Glick says the hijackers claimed to have a bomb, which looked like a box with something red around it. Family members immediately call emergency 9-1-1 on another line.” - [TORONTO SUN, 9/16/2001; PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 10/28/2001; LONGMAN, 2002, PP. 143; MSNBC, 7/30/2002]

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/911.call/index.html
Hijacked passenger called 911 on cell phone
September 11, 2001 Posted: 11:35 PM EDT (0335 GMT)
"We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Cramer quoted the man from a transcript of the call. The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said.

All of these stories were downplayed to reduce liability of the FAA and the Airlines. Everything that is downplayed or omitted in an investigation is just added fuel to conspiracy theories.

Great info and post Zen especially the material highlighting the liability issues.

[ZENSMACK89]

Once again you what others have said goes sailing right over your head.

Any incriminating docuements would have been shredded hours, days or weeks before 9/11/01. There would be an extreme requirement to keep any and all alleged docuementation concerning this secure and to destroy any and all that were no longer needed. It would be of the utmost idiocy to have any such docuemantation withing a few hundred feet of the 110 storey structures that one was about to demolish anyway.
Once again I ask, what significance to this is the fact that the emergency office was located so close? Again, be specific I am getting a chill from all of your handwaving.

And once again you're not reading.

"Let's say for argument sake no inside job..."

[ZENSMACK89]

Great info and post Zen especially the material highlighting the liability issues.

Thanks. It seems though that some others are still having reading comprehension problems.

[Swing Dangler]

Am I right? Where did I leave that damn Occam's Razor??

TAM:)

Occam's Razor is a poor excuse for human attitudes and motivations which are indeed very complex.

[Swing Dangler]

Thanks. It seems though that some others are still having reading comprehension problems.

I'm sure it would be very easy to reproduce the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and asymmetrical damage via a computer modeling program. I'm surprised NIST or for that matter Purdue has not done that yet.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm sure it would be very easy to reproduce the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and asymmetrical damage via a computer modeling program. I'm surprised NIST or for that matter Purdue has not done that yet.
Or at least the "initiation". They might not follow through on the complete collapse.

[sts60]

No your story not mine.

For the last time: you are the one proposing the scenario that incriminating documents were stored in WTC 7, and that it was destroyed on purpose to destroy said documents. I did not claim this and I do not believe it. That makes it your story, not mine. I'm merely responding to your claim and pointing out the problems with it.

If you want to keep saying "No, it's yours!", feel free, but I see no further need to respond to such weird denial. It's cute when my kid does it. It's just bizarre and sad when a presumed adult does it.

Failed to foresee? It's already proven they failed to foresee by placing the emergency bunker in WTC7.

I agree that the occupants of WTC 7 failed to foresee the collapse of the Twin Towers. But that doesn't support your scenario.

Where did I say they had to go in with a few hundred kilograms of explosives"?

You didn't. But that's what it would have taken if CD was really required, except for one sub-scenario described below.

You seem to think they can go in and out of a building all day and all night that's on the verge of collapse to get out documents that need to be shred or data that needs to be secured. Did they retrieve anything in the eight hours the building stood?

No, I don't. I don't think such incriminating evidence would have been stored at the epicenter of the attacks - and presumed response to them - at all; that's crazy. Keeping the documents there once the attacks were underway would have been even crazier.

You also seem to think the building can fall from fire on a few floors and supposed structural damage to one side

Correction: fire on many floors and extensive structural damage to one side. I already described (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2976220&postcount=217) the unmistakable collapse indicators which developed as a result, the same kind I've studied at the fire academy. And that is my scenario, but it's not relevant because...

but now the building all of sudden is going to need "few hundred kilograms of explosives" in addition to this damage to get it to fall. Why is that?

... it's your claim that the building had to be brought down with explosives. Controlled demolition of skyscrapers takes hundreds of pounds to hundreds of kilograms of explosives, and extensive preparation, especially in built out and furnished buildings.

Now, you either accept the building was not significantly damaged, thus requiring a full load of explosives to bring down, or you accept that it didn't need the typical amount because it was significantly compromised by fire and debris damage, contradicting your line "You seem to think..." above. In either case, you're proposing that CD experts carrying significant amounts of explosives were secretly sent into the damaged, burning building and stealthily prepared it for demolition in a few hours. Either version is just nuts.

I'm pointing out possible scenarios of why they took it down not exactly how. That was the OP.

And I'm pointing out why they are crazy. You can't restrict discussion to evidence-free claims of "they might have been hiding something". We're looking at whether they make any sense or not in the first place, and we're looking at if they could have been pulled off. If you don't like having your claims sanity-checked, don't bring them up.

Here's another twist.

Not interested in more FUD smokescreen. You're just raving at this point, and not even making a coherent argument. The parts of it that are clear are just nutty - only a step or two away from the "no planes" gold standard of lunacy. I hope, for your sake, you can back away from the brink.

[pomeroo]

Occam's Razor is a poor excuse for human attitudes and motivations which are indeed very complex.



Hey, Swingie, thanks for your incisive response to Bernacchia's paper on the hijackers' piloting skills. Most of us thought you would ignore it again.

Excuse me? You did ignore it again? It completely destroys one of your fantasies?

Oh, that's right.