WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

ZENSMACK89 said:
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?
Click to expand...

And who would have been sent into a burning unstable building to rig explosives?
 
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
 
jaydeehess said:
: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)
Click to expand...
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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, 2007
Click to expand...
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.

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.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jaydeehess said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?


jaydeehess said:
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?
Click to expand...


I'm saying they hardly retrieved anything at all. They blew it up and incinerated it.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
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?
Click to expand...

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


jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

jaydeehess said:
Decorum aside, you are proving yourself more the idiot the more you post. Quit while you are merely behind.
Click to expand...

Watch it. And says you. You've come with absolutely nothing.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Why don't you tell me what they retrieved in rubble that was causing rapid corrosion of steel?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
NDBoston said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
And you don't see any conflict between your claims and Liozeaux's statements you just posted?
 
jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

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

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom