WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

Arus808 said:
We can speculate that a herd of unicorns being chased by the Red Bull* caused WTC 7 to collapse
Click to expand...
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:
 
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?"
 
SpaceMonkeyZero said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
Swing Dangler said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Swing Dangler said:
One, I think you can write it off as a "mass attack on the American psyche" for WTC 7.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!!!!!!!
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
utter B.S.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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.
 
Sabrina said:
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!
Click to expand...

Really? So what did they retrieve from WTC7? Anything?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
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.
Click to expand...


: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)
 
They couldn't afford slow insurance payouts or endless litigations sending NYC into further debt.
Click to expand...

You mean like the ones that happened over the WTC towers?
 
jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
ZENSMACK89 said:
I addressed that.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom