WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[sts60]

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

.

Hey! You left me out! No fair!

 

[jaydeehess]

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

Actually I could swear that you gave a senario in which the building had to be destroyed in order to destroy sensitive materials within the building. As a matter of fact looking back at the "I Zensmack.." statement yes, yes you did say that. However anytime anyone tried to flesh this conjecture out you have denied that you have put such a senario forth.
Seems that now you wish to back away from such a senario in favor of a senario in which it was done to speed up insurance payouts.
You either address the senario you DID INDEED put forth or you admit it is not a probable senario. Your continued "I did not say that" is reminiscent of a schoolyard arguement.

- " Why blow up WTC 7?"
~ " 'cause!"
- " 'cause why?"
~ " 'cause they had to!"

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?


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

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

If all that occured was broken windows then yes, the only papers that would be in danger of flying out the window because of that would be those that were sitting around the office, not in file cabinets, not in safes. Any docuements that were properly stored would only be in danger IF the building collapsed and it would matter litte how it collapsed so demolishing the building deliberatly would be just as bad as allowing it to crumble on its own.

How the fires started are not germane to this discussion. If, as you seem to now imply (do you ever actually come out and say anything or just imply it?) the fires were deliberatly lit then please come up with a reason for doing so that fits in with your "WTC 7 was not part of the original plan". IF the reason is to give a reason to load explosives and bring the building down to destroy docuements then why not just light the offices in question on fire and destroy the docuements in that fashion? It would be a helluva lot more secure than imploding a 47 storey building. Then again if one can get inside to upper floors to light fires(without the FF's noticing this) then you can also remove files.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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.

Gee BillyRay I can't telling you I can't read for you.

Sorry

BTW I see you like to nominate people. What can I win? lol

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Patently ridiculous.

Your characterization 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.

Really? Is that all? How much did the FBI share information with the CIA leading up to 9/11 and vica versa genius? Why didn't they? Are soviet agents the only concern of the agencies housed in WTC7 or is this delusion exclusive to you? Tell me more.

 

[Sabrina]

Prior to 9/11, Zensmack, the primary concentration of the intelligence community (note: this is as I understand the situation) was on the Soviet Union. This can be evidenced by the fact that the military, up until 9/11, trained as if they were going to fight the Soviets eventually. BillyRay offered that as a legitimate example of what might have been considered at the time, HAD YOUR SCENARIO (at least, our interpretation of your ramblings) been the case. You asked for facts; there you go, I gave you some facts.

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

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.

Well, according to the latest poll that says only 4.6% think the government made it happen, it's fitting that there is a 20 to 1 gang up on truthers.

There are many valid points. And if you think we're being jerks, go over to LCF and try defending a non-truther getting kicked off and banned from their forums for saying "Hey, I disagree with you guys."

Any dissent there is treated with extreme prejudice.

Truthers refuse to listen to reason, and just claim they're JAQ. (Just Asking Questions) yet they refuse to accept answers other than their preconceived answers. If you are truly on the fence and think that truthers are being the logical and thoughtful ones... Well, I question your fence standing abilities. It's quite obvious which side has reality on their side.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Do you have a reference for a study wherein a computer model was created in order to analytically replicate the mechanics of a collapse as shown on a video?

Well you could start here at Caltech
I'm not an expert of course, but with a little tweaking you could change the force causing the damage in the models described.

Or perhaps this analysis,Analysis of building collapse under blast loads, could shed some light as found at ScienceDirect.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Prior to 9/11, Zensmack, the primary concentration of the intelligence community (note: this is as I understand the situation) was on the Soviet Union. This can be evidenced by the fact that the military, up until 9/11, trained as if they were going to fight the Soviets eventually. BillyRay offered that as a legitimate example of what might have been considered at the time, HAD YOUR SCENARIO (at least, our interpretation of your ramblings) been the case. You asked for facts; there you go, I gave you some facts.

Facts? The Soviet Union is no longer in existence, correct?

 

[Sabrina]

I use the "Soviet Union" moniker because those are the tactics the military was trained to fight. Not the "Russian" tactics; "Soviet" tactics. Why the moniker did not change, I do not know; all I know is it IS still called "Soviet Union" in military terminology. Note that this is prior to 9/11, however; nowadays the focus is more on urban warfare, as I understand it.

 

[The Almond]

Well you could start here at Caltech

Not quite what I was looking for. The Caltech study focuses on the vibrations caused by earthquakes, and they're only analyzing a moment frame. That's an awfully far cry away from a full building. I also notice that they don't mention an analytical reproduction of the collapse. What I mean is, they haven't described a model with all of the necessary degrees of freedom for a falling, rolling, impacting object. Naturally, such a model would need to be applied to hundreds of thousands of elements.

I'm not an expert of course, but with a little tweaking you could change the force causing the damage in the models described.

I don't see any mention of universal applicability of the model they create. Vibrations caused by earthquakes and those caused by demolitions are radically different.

Or perhaps this analysis,Analysis of building collapse under blast loads, could shed some light as found at ScienceDirect.

A better reference, but my company doesn't have access to that particular structural journal. I noticed from the abstract, though, that they compared their model to photographs, not videos. My question is: are there any analytical models that compare a collapse to a video analytically?

 

[Swing Dangler]

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.
Dave

Your entire scenario is one huge False Analogy as you are trying to compare two different events and treating them as one. Of course your example is demolished much like WTC 7 was...from the bottom up!

If you don't think it could be a CD or even rigged under the conditions of the day, take it up with Danny Jowenko.

 

[sts60]

I'm going to apologize to Zensmack.

I read the last few pages of the thread, and didn't realize at first that he was not only mentioning the possibility of a 9/11 coverrup but also other motivations. I picked up on this from his replies, and did incorporate this into my later posts, but it was sloppy of me at the start.

Now, with that said, Zensmack asks:

What's my case? Did you read yet or can't you?

Well, let's try to summarize what his case is. I can read, so I went back through ZS's posts in this thread again.

Let's try to answer his question
What's my case?
in terms of motive. Underlines added for emphasis.

First, the general question: Was it an inside job (part of 9/11 conspiracy) or not?

Inside job:

It could have been an inside job I'm only saying it didn't need to be for people to have an incentive to cover things up.

Not an inside job:

It could have been an inside job I'm only saying it didn't need to be for people to have an incentive to cover things up.

Now to a specific motive. Why blow up WTC 7 that day?

Covering up failure to prevent terrorist use of explosives at WTC 1/2:

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...

I am not quite clear on how one covers up the presence of explosives by using more explosives to destroy another building, or for that matter why destroying documents of any type in WTC 7 covers up the presence of explosives at WTC 1/2. Maybe ZS will elaborate on that.

WTC 7 destroyed to help blame the terrorists:

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

Which raises the question of, since the destruction of WTC 1/2 were already being blamed on the terrorists, as was the damage to WTC 7, what destroying WTC 7 accomplished. Either it was going to fall - which would be blamed on the terrorists - or it was simply going to be damaged and burned - which would also be blamed on the terrorists.

Destroyed to avoid insurance liability:

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?

Help Silverstein with insurance claims:

And how long did it take for Silverstein to collect in the no fault scenario? Did I not show where they were concerned with a full and timely insurance payment so that they could get the rebuilding started and not have to spend more hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees...

Best way to destroy sensitive documents which are evidence of 9/11 conspiracy:

...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?

Best way to destroy sensitive documents which are not evidence of 9/11 conspiracy:

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 why was it the best way?...

Retrieval impossible with building structurally compromised:

...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.

This still leaves the question as to how a demolition crew was rounded up and prepared a burning, damaged, fully built-out and occupied (i.e., everything but the people inside) 47-story building for controlled demolition in less than half a day. (He actually quotes some demolition experts, and the quotes show how absurd this is, but that's another post.)

Retrieval impossible with building not structurally compromised:

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?

Apparently securing the structurally-sound building and escorting appropriate people in once the fires are out is less satisfactory than destroying the entire building and hoping sensitive material isn't scattered in the collapse. (ZS seems to think that blowing the building up will pretty much incinerate everything, which isn't true, but that's another topic.)

Let's not forget that in either case,

Unable to come up with suitable personnel to recover documents:
Who could have been sent into the burnt out floors and surrounding areas to look for sensitive documents and data?
Can't come up with people with suitable clearances bound by non-disclosure agreeements:
Do they all have clearance to see other agencies documents and data or even all of the documents and data of their own agency?

(Since ZS responded to posts discussing the commercial occupants as well as gov't occupants, I assume he includes them in his questions. If not, I apologize for reading too much out of the exchange. Anyway...)

I'm trying to think of someone with a high-level clearance who is also bound by non-disclosure agreements for dealing with commercial entities, and who is physically capable of walking up stairs with protective gear and carrying things out. Oh wait! Me! I wonder if they have any people like that in New York City.

Cover-up of unspecified government conspiracy:

"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."

Finally, in case we missed anything:

Unspecified all-purpose "placeholder" reason:

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

So that's what I could pick out for Zensmack's case in terms of motive. That leaves all the practical considerations of how this might be done, and other complications, but that's another post.

 

[SDC]

Detroit Hudson's caper

In fact, the CD of the Hudson's building in Detroit had its problems. In particular, the debris damaged the "PeopleMover" express line. (Not planned!) Granted, the PeopleMover was mostly a dud but still, this indicates that even when you have a lot of time, resources, and experts, things can mess up.

It is amazing how many people believe that construction, and demolition, are easy and intuitive to the meanest intelligence. Come on, guys. Get an education, or at least experience.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Not quite what I was looking for. The Caltech study focuses on the vibrations caused by earthquakes, and they're only analyzing a moment frame. That's an awfully far cry away from a full building. I also notice that they don't mention an analytical reproduction of the collapse. What I mean is, they haven't described a model with all of the necessary degrees of freedom for a falling, rolling, impacting object. Naturally, such a model would need to be applied to hundreds of thousands of elements.

I don't see any mention of universal applicability of the model they create. Vibrations caused by earthquakes and those caused by demolitions are radically different.


A better reference, but my company doesn't have access to that particular structural journal. I noticed from the abstract, though, that they compared their model to photographs, not videos. My question is: are there any analytical models that compare a collapse to a video analytically?

I would suggest NIST models of the WTC.
I'm not sure if this model is completed yet as discussed briefly here.

Mechanical engineers use computers to visually represent a variety of engineering events. For Astaneh-Asl, the software helped predict how structures respond to real-world, high-speed events such as crashes. The software was used to simulate what Astaneh-Asl called the complex issues and nonlinearities needed to analyze the impact of an airplane and the ensuing fire. For the simulation, he used MSC.Dytran and MSC.Marc from MSC.Software of Los Angeles.

To create the model, Astaneh-Asl worked with David McCallen, director of the Center for Complex Distributed Systems at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. They have worked together in the past, most recently on a computer model showing the effects of earthquakes on San Francisco's Bay Bridge.
"Understanding how and why the World Trade Center buildings collapsed will help us prevent this type of building collapse in the future," Astaneh-Asl said.

More information of this model can be found here

Vibrations from earthquakes or CD are still vibrations and apparently the same model used to study collapses from earthquakes can be tweaked to model building collapses.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your entire scenario is one huge False Analogy as you are trying to compare two different events and treating them as one. Of course your example is demolished much like WTC 7 was...from the bottom up!

I'm fascinated by your assertion that the controlled demolition of a large building is a poor analogy for the controlled demolition of a large building. Would you care to elaborate on some of the more obvious differences between the two cases?

You see, the argument has always been that WTC7 could not have collapsed symmetrically and into its own footprint unless it were a controlled demolition, therefore the argument must be that the charges were placed so as to achieve that effect. While it's possible that some much simpler arrangement of charges might have brought the building down, the truth movement argument is that only a carefully designed demolition would have produced the controlled collapse that they argue was observed. Therefore, I'm using the rigging of a large building to achieve a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint as an example of the time taken to rig a large building to achieve a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint. If you argue that something simpler was actually done, then you're contradicting your own argument.

If you don't think it could be a CD or even rigged under the conditions of the day, take it up with Danny Jowenko.

I must admit, I've never seen or heard Danny Jowenko's description of how an unstable building that was on fire could have been rigged for demolition so as to achieve a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint in only eight hours. Could you give us a few quotes?

Dave

 

[Sabrina]

Also bear in mind, Danny Jowenko was only ever exposed to the last 6.5 seconds of the collapse, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong, thank you). He was going off of a very small sample of evidence, and I notice has not been speaking up lately in support of a CD, most likely because he's seen the remainder of the evidence. Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but the only quote of Jowenko's I've ever seen the TM use is the one from about five years ago when he was first shown the video and not a thing since.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well you could start here at Caltech
I'm not an expert of course, but with a little tweaking you could change the force causing the damage in the models described.

Or perhaps this analysis,Analysis of building collapse under blast loads, could shed some light as found at ScienceDirect.

In addition to what Almond has said I note that in both the links you provide it would be neccessary to know the characteristics of the building in question. This would be very difficult as the building had een damaged. First the best estimate of the full extent of that damage has to be determined as well as a range of error in that estimate. The effect of that damage then has to be determined as well as the varying senarios that take into account the error range for each area of damage.
Only then can you attempt to plug this into any computer modelling.

NIST may indeed have done this and would have to have done so for each fire senario(with the range of error for that damage as well) and for a senario(s) of a blast events.

gee and everyone wonders why it takes so long.

 

[jaydeehess]

At least it seems that SD is attempting to defend his contentions while Zens just denies that anything anyone else says about his contentions is actually what he said. I believe that is often reffered to as making things up as one goes along.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Also bear in mind, Danny Jowenko was only ever exposed to the last 6.5 seconds of the collapse, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong, thank you). He was going off of a very small sample of evidence, and I notice has not been speaking up lately in support of a CD, most likely because he's seen the remainder of the evidence. Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but the only quote of Jowenko's I've ever seen the TM use is the one from about five years ago when he was first shown the video and not a thing since.

He has been contacted since then and has maintained his analysis.

I'm fascinated by your assertion that the controlled demolition of a large building is a poor analogy for the controlled demolition of a large building. Would you care to elaborate on some of the more obvious differences between the two cases?

Better yet, I will let you do the analysis yourself:
1. Compare the number of floors.
2. Compare the building layout.
3. Compare the internal structure.
4. Compare the size in square feet.
5. Compare the vertical height.
6. Compare the contents.
7. Compare the construction materials.
8. Compare the speed of the collapse.
9. Compare the time of collapse.
10. Compare the analysis of experts.
11. Compare the conditions of the inside of the building.
12. Compare the conditions of the outside of the building.
13. Compare the location where charges would have to be applied.
14. Compare the time frame of subject one to the potential time frame or frames of subject 2.

I must admit, I've never seen or heard Danny Jowenko's description of how an unstable building that was on fire could have been rigged for demolition so as to achieve a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint in only eight hours. Could you give us a few quotes?

Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:

"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

A nice list of interviews and I believe with translation that you can find an appropriate quotes stating how he believes it could have been done within the time frame of the attacks.

Interview with translation here:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...tion+interviews


Audio interview here

 

[Swing Dangler]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?