WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Run of the mill sensitive docuement desatruction was addressed in post 188 by Sabrina. you came back suggesting that the ordfer to destroy whatever docuements needed destroying came from the administration


So, there are two choices in your fantasy
- the docuements in question are incriminating of the involvement of the administration. Given that you use the phrase, "the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years" in connection with "same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed", the implication is that what you are referring to is the senario in which 9/11 inside job docuements were destroyed.

-the other choice is that the "the knuckleheads (crooks and murderers) in power today" did bring down the towers but failed to realize that the nearby WTC 7 contained sensitive but non-incriminating docuements and that they would be in danger of falling into the hands of someone in the general public as a result of the damage done to this structure.
In this case you suppose that a good, secure and efficient way to destroy those docuements would be to destroy the building before it falls of its own accord. Somehow, someone is to enter a creaking building that is on fire and in danger of collapse and set explosives designed specifically to bring the building down mostly in its own footprint and in such a way as to ensure the destruction of said hypothetical docuements.

In order to somehow back this up you ask if any sensitive docuements found their way into the hands of the media. There would be several answers to that; first a FF or NYPD coming accross any such docuement is most likely to turn it over to higher authorities; agents from the various agencies involved would have people on site actively looking for such types of docuements and available for anyone else who finds one to turn it over to them, there may well have been nothing so particularily sensitive in the first place.

You also ask if anything was recovered by the agencies involved but it was pointed out to you that they would not be in the habit of telling anyone what they did or did not recover in the way of docuements that they did not want the general public to know about in the first place.


Are we clear now?

Yes I'm all clear on your multiple fantasies. Now when will you be replying to something I posted?

If your fantasy was not addressed in my post then by all means lay out just wtfiretruck your senario is and how it differs from the options I posted. Once again I ask that you be specific.

Would 10 stories of broken windows and documents flying out and blowing in the wind like someone here describe " to all corners of the earth" from a now unsecure building be a better option?

IRS was on 24th & 25th floors
CIA 25th floor
DoD 25th floor
OEM 23rd floor
US Secret Service 9th & 10th floors

The 10 storey gash could only possibily endanger docuements of the US SS. BUT, as Chris 7 points out, a FF said that his inspection of the 9th floor revealed no heavy damage on the south face so the only papers that could fly out would have to be sitting out on a desk.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

If your fantasy was not addressed in my post then by all means lay out just wtfiretruck your scenario is and how it differs from the options I posted. Once again I ask that you be specific.

My scenario is liability and accountability. I can't lay it out anymore then I have.

IRS was on 24th & 25th floors
CIA 25th floor
DoD 25th floor
OEM 23rd floor
US Secret Service 9th & 10th floors

The 10 storey gash could only possibly endanger documents of the US SS. BUT, as Chris 7 points out; a FF said that his inspection of the 9th floor revealed no heavy damage on the south face

And those are the only windows that were broken in a building on the verge of collapse? What floors were on fire? Go get your little picture out. How did they get on fire?

so the only papers that could fly out would have to be sitting out on a desk.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that. You're reaching now.

And once again... As if that was the only concern.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

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?

Reading this nonsense, and the sts60 post to which it responds, it becomes clear just how completely lost you are. Funny stuff, actually.

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)...

snip

That's just brilliant. Ignoring for a moment the practical impossibility of the whole operation, you propose that they may have surreptitiously destroyed the building... to decrease their insurance exposure and potential civil liability.

That's Stundie-level idiocy, right there.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

No need for you to agree it was proven on Sept 11th. It fits perfect if you can read.

Elaborate please.

WTC 7 was chosen as the location for the emergency bunker, more than likely because they thought the towers might be attacked again and they wanted proximity. They clearly didn't consider the possibility of the towers collapsing when they made their choice. As it turned out, they should have.

Explain how this info "fits perfect" with any of the completely non-sensical scenarios you propose.

 

[buka001]

I am at present engaged in a "debate" on LCF, relating to WTC 7.

I have posed four simple questions -

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

No one has really risen to the challenge of the question. Alot of diversions and claims that my questions are a backward science. Someone goes so far as to link me to an explanation of the four steps in scientific method. Yet, as I pointed out to him, a formulation of a hypothesis, which is step 2 in the link he provided is exactly what these questions seek to do.

I will perservere to ensure the debate does not go sidetracked! I would really like to see some pluasible theory as to how it was done.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Do try to learn to read.

Are all documents that are secured or are shred in any business only incriminating in nature? They might be but they also might be something that can't afford to be unsecured.

Patently ridiculous.

Your charaterization of a completely evacuated, heavily damaged, burning building as "unsecured" is hereby rejected on grounds of stupidity. Who exactly do you propose they might have feared gaining access to the building and their treasure trove of vital, albeit non-incriminating, secrets? Soviet agents disguised as firefighters?

Of course, the more obvious point is that finishing off the building would do nothing to enhance the security of its contents. Quite the opposite, actually.

Utterly absurd, unmitigated woo. Let it flow, baby.

 

[YCHTT]

What I find funny is that the CTs go from "Government Conspericy" to "Insurance Fraud" in the same breath.

These people give our government too much credit. You are talking about the same people overlooking the fact that one of their own contractors was billing them over 500K to ship a 25 cent washer. Yet they can mastermind the biggest attack on our country and cover all the bases???

Dont get me started on insurance companies. Im battleing with one for going on 3 years now and I have been fighting with them since December to pay me 4 months of back disability.

 

[allibearbear]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

collectively, you're ganging up on Swing Dangler, you do realize this, don't you?
I found the 9/11 section of Zeitgeist fascinating;indeed, it was my first exposure to said "conspiracy theory". All of you, collectively, are not doing much in the way of convincing me the story is a falsehood, as much as you're convincing me you're a bunch

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

. Make a valid point, already.

 

[allibearbear]

buka001

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

Excellent questions. I think your questions illustrate that no one except the government could have pulled this off.

 

[GlennB]

buka001

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

Excellent questions. I think your questions illustrate that no one except the government could have pulled this off.

No. He's illustrating that it couldn't have be pulled off at all.

What you're doing is beginning with a belief in CD, then stretching the bounds of reality looking for a motive,opportunity and method.

Let us know when you find them.

 

[buka001]

buka001

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

Excellent questions. I think your questions illustrate that no one except the government could have pulled this off.

If that is your opinion, answer the questions, stating how the government addressed the four issues I am trying to address if one rigged WTC7 for a CD.

Can you also describe how you think that because of the uncertaintity as to how it was rigged, automatically means the government did it.

It would suggest that if you believe there is doubt as to how something was done, you assume government conspiracy. That is a narrow minded approach to an intelligent discussion.

 

[allibearbear]

I'm not beginning with a belief. I'm saying all of you osting against "conspiracy theorists" as though they're "conspiring to be stupid" is ridiculous. You sound like smug-olas.
Motive. Americans get laughed at when they ask, Why did they attack us? To scare us. Who? They did or we did? Not that absurd of a question.
Opportunity. The point of buka's questions. Americans have opportunity to place bombs in American buildings. Elementary.
Method? Lay a charge during the 15 minutes the guard takes a break everyday and the charge will survive the only two, small fires caught on video.
This isn't rocket science, but it's being made out to be.

 

[buka001]

15 minutes to walk past a gaurd with a large suspicious bag, attach a demolition charge to a column and wire it safely and correctly and then walk away!
Quite an interisting security system they had there. One gaurd walks away for a 15min break and the entire building is now vulnerable for any criminal activities. And the wiring for the bombs? Where was that hidden? Where was the bomb hidden? How many times did they have to do that to rig the whole building.

2 small fires? Hell where do you suppose all the smoke came from then?

Need a logical answer to the questions so we can all consider the events that transpired that day.

I agree with you that its not rocket science. No need to divert down that path. These questions are simple. Answer them in a logical open manner and then we can proceed with a open discussion. No need for anger or flames.

 

[DGM]

The heat corroded steel was documented by FEMA the 10 story gash was documented in the preliminary NIST report on WTC7 and the building being engulfed in raging fires and on the verge of collapse is well you know that story... it’s what you believe.

So what part is it your little friends would disagree with?

My "little friends" would disagree with the building was "incinerated" totally destroying securely all contents of the building. Obviously your not willing to look at the evidence of the day like I pointed out. Computers, paper work and a host of other office stuff was found in the WTC 7 debris. Unlike the towers everything was not pulverized.

Why don't you do some research on your own once and stop parroting others peoples lies. Go talk to some of the people that were there they'll tell you about all the "secure" material that was dumped into the street.

 

[Mancman]

Method? Lay a charge during the 15 minutes the guard takes a break everyday and the charge will survive the only two, small fires caught on video.
This isn't rocket science, but it's being made out to be.

Yeah, because all 1,800,000sqft buildings have one security guard.

 

[DGM]

It would be stupid to admit to anything other then collateral damage. Thanks for agreeing.

And seeing that no evidence of CD has ever been found the only logical conclusion is that the events were exactly as the MSM reported. As you agree that trying anything such as CD would be monumentally stupid (risk of getting caught) the only logical thing for them to do was to let the building fall if it may. Anything else as you say would risk never getting paid. Thanks for making that point again and again and again.

 

[tsig]

Though it won't help don't wish them luck wish them facts.

We have the facts.

That you cannot see them is your lack of vision.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Method? Lay a charge during the 15 minutes the guard takes a break everyday and the charge will survive the only two, small fires caught on video.

Let's take a look at the statistics for the largest building ever imploded, to see how long this would take.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

"At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson’s is the largest single building ever imploded."

"CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex."

OK, twelve people times 24 days is 288 man-days or 2304 man-hours. Assuming WTC7 required the same amount of explosives - despite it being a bigger building - that means that 9,216 fifteen-minute breaks were required to rig the building. At one a day that's 25 years and 3 months to rig the building, so your conspirators needed to start in 1976, ten years before WTC7 was even built.

This isn't rocket science, but it's being made out to be.

Demolishing a building isn't anywhere near as trivial as demolishing your fantasies.

Dave

 

[tsig]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civlity

collectively, you're ganging up on Swing Dangler, you do realize this, don't you?
I found the 9/11 section of Zeitgeist fascinating;indeed, it was my first exposure to said "conspiracy theory". All of you, collectively, are not doing much in the way of convincing me the story is a falsehood, as much as you're convincing me you're a bunch

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civlity

. Make a valid point, already.

Why would we want to convince you.

The point is made and you are sitting on it.

 

[twinstead]

I'm not beginning with a belief. I'm saying all of you osting against "conspiracy theorists" as though they're "conspiring to be stupid" is ridiculous. You sound like smug-olas.
Motive. Americans get laughed at when they ask, Why did they attack us? To scare us. Who? They did or we did? Not that absurd of a question.
Opportunity. The point of buka's questions. Americans have opportunity to place bombs in American buildings. Elementary.
Method? Lay a charge during the 15 minutes the guard takes a break everyday and the charge will survive the only two, small fires caught on video.
This isn't rocket science, but it's being made out to be.

No. It IS rocket science, but it is being made out NOT to be by you.

"lay a charge when 'the' guard takes a break everyday"? "the two small fires"? That means you don't believe the eye witness accounts of raging, uncontrolled fires, right? How convenient for you.

You're kidding right? It's like describing the building of the Hoover Dam by saying "yea, just have a couple guys dump some concrete in front of the river, and eventually the lake just fills up".