WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[Sabrina]

I have no idea. But no government intelligence agency would be dumb enough to put super secret archives in a building shared by many, many others. Now perhaps you are going to say, "Yuck, yuck, Dubya is dumb enough." Probably not; did you know his Yale GPA was higher than Kerry's? -- but in any case I bet the lifetime civil servants are not that dumb.

So you should retreat to the notion that everyone in the building had to work for a secret government agency because the likes of the CIA infested it. But you know, of course, that not all intelligence community work is secret. Much is not. I spent a couple years translating (for lousy pay) public documents from Russian and Ukrainian into English for the Joint Publications Research Service (does that still exist?), which translations were publically available and used by scholars. My worst memory of that is a report of the newly independent Ukraine's IRS-equivalent, ca.1993. I remember screaming at my manager (the woman who sent me the articles to be translated): "There is not a goddamned active verb in the whole thing! It's all passive voice!" What a nightmare. Good practice, though.

Very true, SDC. Case in point; I have a Top Secret with Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance, with a FullScope polygraph soon to be added on top of that. Does that mean that every single day I deal with classified information? Heck no! It just means that, should there be a NEED for me to access the information, I have been determined to be trustworthy enough to handle said information. I would find it HIGHLY unlikely that any majorly sensitive documents would be found in WTC7, so the idea that the building had to be demolished to protect these documents is, on the fact of it, utterly ludicrous, and that's not even getting into the facts that I've posted wherein documents that are classified MUST be destroyed in one of five very specific ways because they are PROVEN to leave NO chance of reconstructing the information. Need I add that demolishing a building is NOT among those five? Didn't think so.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I have no idea. But no government intelligence agency would be dumb enough to put super secret archives in a building shared by many, many others. Now perhaps you are going to say, "Yuck, yuck, Dubya is dumb enough." Probably not; did you know his Yale GPA was higher than Kerry's? -- but in any case I bet the lifetime civil servants are not that dumb.

You have no idea? Well let me give you an idea. I work a building where we are not the CIA, SEC, SS, or anything even remotely of that stature. Still I don't have clearance to go anywhere I want in the building. To assume the agencies and occupants of WTC7 would have been perfectly fine with a compromised building standing with no more electronic surveillance or security for an unforeseeable amount of time is to be exactly what you claim to “have no idea".

So you should retreat to the notion that everyone in the building had to work for a secret government agency because the likes of the CIA infested it.

Never said that.

But you know, of course, that not all intelligence community work is secret. Much is not.

Is none of it? Does it even have to be to need security?

I spent a couple years translating (for lousy pay) public documents from Russian and Ukrainian into English for the Joint Publications Research Service (does that still exist?), which translations were publically available and used by scholars. My worst memory of that is a report of the newly independent Ukraine's IRS-equivalent, ca.1993. I remember screaming at my manager (the woman who sent me the articles to be translated): "There is not a goddamned active verb in the whole thing! It's all passive voice!" What a nightmare. Good practice, though.

And? It doesn't have to be of a clandestine , secret or, illegal, nature to need security. And that's not to claim none of it was.

 

[SDC]

You have no idea? Well let me give you an idea. I work a building where we are not the CIA, SEC, SS, or anything even remotely of that stature. Still I don't have clearance to go anywhere I want in the building. To assume the agencies and occupants of WTC7 would have been perfectly fine with a compromised building standing with no more electronic surveillance or security for an unforeseeable amount of time is to be exactly what you claim to “have no idea".

SDC -- Nuts. Clearly I need to study up on quoting. Anyhow, here I go. I work in a large public institution, at a mid-management (department head) level. I do not have access to go everywhere, and my staff has even less. There are many levels of access, even in buildings that are open to the public. So what?

ZS -- Never said that.

SDC -- no you did not. I said "you should." That is subjunctive (or conditional? it's dropping out of the language) voice. Not indicative. I'm saying, "to be consistent, you should argue therefore..."

ZS -- Is none of it? Does it even have to be to need security?
And? It doesn't have to be of a clandestine , secret or, illegal, nature to need security. And that's not to claim none of it was.

SDC -- Damned quote function. Anyhow, my point remains that having the CIA in a building does not mean that that office of the CIA has oodles of secrets in their files in that building. The US intelligence community has many, many functions and archives (the latter in the sense of "collections of papers and documents, etc., not in active use, but available if they have to be" -- I just made that up, and yes, I have worked as an archivist, though in universities) which are not at all worth blowing up a building for. Such as whatever file may hold references to my translations of silly public reports from Russian or Ukrainian. (I qualified in Latvian and Polish, too, but who cared? My manager just laughed.)

My view remains first, that the evidence plus the intelligent interpretation thereof (by members of the appropriate community, construction, demolition, etc.) is that the Salomon Bros building fell because of debris from the towers, fires etc., not CD; and the CD/ CT that it was worth blowing up, because of secrets stored therein, makes no sense for a motive, because it was hardly the building in which important secrets would have been stored. Not to mention which, even in 2001, we were well into the online data age.

 

[SDC]

Z.Smack, before you reply, "How do you know that really important secrets weren't stored there, perhaps as would be typical in an office, at the cubicle which no one was using right then, because the last inhabitant was a slob and it's overrun with mouse droppings now," my answer is that I don't know. I can't prove a negative, and I wasn't there. But I think it is really unlikely, and the burden is on those trying to convince others of their theory. Just like with the prosecution in a trial. Such as I presume you are. Or why are we having this conversation? You want to convince others of the rightness of your ideas, don't you? Or at least to convince them that theirs are wrong.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

To assume the agencies and occupants of WTC7 would have been perfectly fine with a compromised building standing with no more electronic surveillance or security for an unforeseeable amount of time is to be exactly what you claim to “have no idea".

Bolding mine

See that bolded section? That's called a strawman. And a preposterous one at that. The idea that the damage and fires would have rendered WTC 7 an immediate and ongoing security risk is positively retarded. Had it remained standing, it would have been more secure than ever before. No one outside of the relevant fire and building professionals would have been able to get anywhere near it. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Did you know that you had to show ID to get below 14th street in the days following the attacks? And that was just to get to the downtown area. The notion that any damaged buildings would have been remotely accessible is absurd. You're clearly a kid who's never been to NYC and has no concept of either the scene that particular day and the days that followed, or how things are handled here in general.

 

[DGM]

Where did Blanchard get his expertise? It's easy. Just answer it.

I'll take Romero's first impression of the towers as an expert instead of his revisionism wrapped in a Bush appointment thank you.

Where did Jowenko get his?

Where did he go to school?

What was the last 12 jobs he did?

Were any for Jewish clients?

What was his mothers maiden name?

Was his father bald?

Did he prefer boxers or briefs?

Unless you can answer these questions he has no expertise.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Maybe youy understood but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you would understand there are more security concerns for data and documents these days than just some 10 year defunct cold war nation. My mistake.

It was an example. I won't be troubled to list the name of every nation or organization from whom we keep secrets, just because you choose to be obtuse.

The failure to share information between the FBI and the CIA is topical to 9/11 and why I used it as an example instead of something like KAOS from a 1960's sitcom.

The cultural deficiences at the various law enforcement agencies, and their aversion to working together, is certainly topical to 9/11. But it has NO application to this discussion about WTC 7, unless you are arguing that their aversion to sharing info was so extreme, they'd sooner knock a building down than do it.

Not good, junior. You're really starting to get ridiculous now...

 

[DavidJames]

Not good, junior. You're really starting to get ridiculous now...

I would replace "starting" with "continuing" as I'm still waiting for him to provide one piece of evidence supporting an inside job.

You'd think with over 1200 posts in less then 7 weeks there would be some substance, something beyond "just asking questions", or self perceived anomalies and coincidences.

 

[johnny karate]

Given your record of lack of comprehension I'm sure that is true.

Brilliant retort. Hostile and evasive. But in the end you still have not provided any physical evidence of your CD claim.

They're there. Just use your mouse and click. It's easy.

But just not quite easy enough for you to quote them. More evasiveness.

Sure he does....

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

You might have missed this article, published ten days after the above:

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. 'Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail,' said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives. Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones. Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building. But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images. Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center. Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists. "I'm very upset about that," he said. 'I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen.'

He doesn't agree with you. You can slander him all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't agree with you. Also, in case you missed it when I said it earlier, Van Romero doesn't agree with you.

 

[HyJinX]

For Zen...

 

[Swing Dangler]

No, I reject, your, and any other layperson's, interpretation of the collapse.

Your choice of course. But if they layperson forms that opinion based upon expert opinion, what then?

My comment above renders all of this moot.

Dodge noted.

"

Which does not release Truthers from their obligation to provide evidence, or at the very least that incriminating evidence was removed.

I suspect the same evidence is used that NIST used in regards to 1 and 2.

This would be up to you and your fellow Truthers to provide. There were also numerous witnesses and first responders that could be contacted to provide testimony, as well.

The condition of the steel discovered at WTC 7 is evidence pointing to something other than a typical office fire. I understand that you reject that of course.

Your first step would be to prove that this "non-traditional CD" even exists or is possible before we get into what kind of equipment would be required.

Define non-traditional and I will try my best.

Do any of these people espouse a CD theory?

They are not experts in controlled demolition so you reject their evidence of something other than office fire.

The standard of evidence we are requesting is to provide any at all. So yes, I would say it's realisitic.

Yes, but the logic behind that statement is in error.

Jowenko's opinions on this issue are irrelevant.

"No, I reject, your, and any other layperson's, interpretation of the collapse."
I assume you reject any person's opinion that contradicts the OS. If so, why do you even respond on this thread. Here is an expert not a layperson and you reject his conclusion.

Also, the CD industry exists outside of America, even in some countries unfriendly to the U.S. Do you or Jowenko have any thoughts on why they would keep silent as well?

Jowenko remained silent until he was interviewed. If I remember the interview correctly he wasn't even aware of the collapse of WTC 7. Perhaps this explains the silence of others. It is difficult to form an opinion on something if you don't know that something exists. A construction engineer with a degree from Purdue was not aware of WTC 7 collapse. At which point she said it didn't look right.

No, but it certainly is a strong indicator that it collapsed due to fire and structural damage, and not explosives that no one saw or heard.

Explosives that no one saw or heard? How can you justify this statement based upon the historical record, firefighter statements, video, etc.? And yes, I am speaking of just WTC 7.

I'd be careful how much credibility you give to Jowenko. Remember, he doesn't think that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down by CD, which kind of puts a couple holes in the CT.

False analogy wrapped in straw...we are of course discussing WTC 7 not 1 and 2 I have no idea if Jowenko has analyzed the aspects of 1 and 2 like he did 7. His opinion on 1 and 2 has no bearing on the discussion of 7.

Please provide quotes from anywhere in these testimonies where someone reported seeing an explosive device, related equipment, or a person or persons planting and/or removing them. Wait... I'll save you the time. There aren't any. You fail.

ROFLMAO...so terrorists generally leave lying around their tools of destruction so their attack maybe prevented. Excellent. Rejected. You fail.

STS60-Since there is strong evidence for "natural" collapse, and only weak and ambiguous evidence for CD, there is no logical need for the CD explanation - it's unparsimonious.

The evidence for the natural collapse was based upon the visual record as is the evidence for CD.
1.At what point was an assessment made of the interior structural integrity of the building to determine that a natural collapse was inevitable? I'm not aware of this piece of evidence. What I have read was the possibility, not certainty the building would collapse. In one news report captured on film at ground level, tan official has a news crew move back because they thought the building would tip over into another building. Tip over, not fall in on itself.
2.And at what point in history does a natural collapse follow the characteristics of a controlled demolition collapse? I'm not aware of any. The closest I've seen are buildings toppled on their side due to earthquakes or a failed CD. I would also like to know how asymmetrical damage by debris and fire can cause a symmetrical collapse. Here are examples of collapses due to asymmetrical damage, not exactly appearing as WTC 7 did. See the photos below.

Phantom-Explain why 30 West Broadway was so damaged by the collapse of WTC 7 that it had to be demolished then.

Can you provide photographic evidence showing the 30 West Broadway did not receive any damage from the collapse of 1 and 2 and therefore all of the damage sustained was from WTC 7 only? If not I reject this argument.

Phantom-Why did the Penthouse go? You do realise that it falls into the building below it, which means that there was an internal collapse occuring inside the building at least 6 seconds before the facade started to collapse? How do you drop the inside of the building before the facade in CD?

Yes, I'm aware of that. I suspect it was to blow interior support columns first and then the perimeter columns. That however is better left to Mr. Jowenko to answer.

No, it's damage to facade cause by the collapse of WTC 1. As the collapse starts it, appears darker then the rest of the facade and due to the poor quality if the video is assumed by CT's to be dust. This has been long debunked. BTW, if the building was CD'ed, then since the collapse was from the bottom, why would they use explosives on the top floors?

Source for dust analysis?
Top floor? To remove the supports at that point to achieve a global symmetrical collapse without damaging surrounding structures.

Actually it was more like 5-6, the bottom 3 floors were still semi intact. But how does this prove CD? Why wouldn't the building collapse into the same height pile regardless of how it fell? Buildings are 90% air you know. You might want to take a closer look at what is on top of the pile too. It's the Northern facade. How come that is on top of the pile of rubbble. Surely if the building fell as you claim, the roof should have been on top, not the north face.

Some excellent quotes from that area:
Reporter: “I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl.”

Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock." - 1010 WINS NYC News Radio (09/11/01) Source:
Here

A clear cut description
In one of the most clear-cut examples so far that the WTC 7 was demolished comes from a video clip showing a couple of Ground Zero rescuers overheard talking about what is about to happen to the building.
here

In the first video, two faint explosions* are heard as a group of rescuers are seen walking away from the area (these two faint explosions sound just like these two loud explosions* in this video clip taken at Ground Zero on 9/11). The group of rescue workers in the first video are then heard saying this about the WTC 7 after hearing these two faint explosions:
and here.

In this clip here
Rescuer 3: "The building is about to blow up. Move it back!"
"We are walking back. There's a building about to blow up. There's flame and debris coming down."

So what else could it mean by those obvious sounds of explosives going off and these rescuers then saying that the WTC 7 is “blowin” and was going to be “coming down soon” and is about to “blow up” while telling people to move away from the area other then the Seven was about to be brought down by a controlled demolition. Combine that with an expert opinion on the subject and the lack of an explanation from NIST or FEMA as well as the steel samples found, I think we can get back to the original topic of the thread...WTC7...why blow it up?

 

[DGM]

Swing;

Heres the 30 west broadway story you wanted.
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/fiterman_hall_39764.aspx

 

[DavidJames]

Combine that with an expert opinion on the subject... and the lack of an explanation from NIST or FEMA as well as the steel samples found, I think we can get back to the original topic of the thread...WTC7...why blow it up?

Before getting back and in order to ensure you truly believe your expert, and not just cherry picking his opinions you like, how about you agree with your experts opinion that WTC1 & 2 were not CD's.

 

[afinemadness]

Swing I have a couple of questions.
Have you ever been to a structure fire?
Have you ever been to a fire in an industrial setting?
If you had you would realize that they are loud and that there are many explosive sounds during the fire. There are any number of combustible substances in buildings and the simple fact of a room flashing over can sound like an explosion.
Have you ever seen even a small building collapse in person. I have and let me tell you those statements are not out of character. People use shorthand. They do not say "Get out of here the building has become unstable due to fire and we need to evacuate". They say "It is going to blow get out of here". Buildings almost always fall in also I must admit that I have never been involved in a collapse over 3 stories but I have never seen one fall over.
As far as your pictures did you ever consider they were caused by a sink hole? That would explain why they fell over.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

See that bolded section? That's called a strawman. And a preposterous one at that. The idea that the damage and fires would have rendered WTC 7 an immediate and ongoing security risk is positively retarded. Had it remained standing, it would have been more secure than ever before. No one outside of the relevant fire and building professionals would have been able to get anywhere near it. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah that's right because everything is a black and white situation to you. That's why it's so easy for you to believe the dumbed down official version of events. The building is either completely collapsed or it's ok to enter no in-between right?

Give it up you have nothing.

Did you know that you had to show ID to get below 14th street in the days following the attacks? And that was just to get to the downtown area. The notion that any damaged buildings would have been remotely accessible is absurd. You're clearly a kid who's never been to NYC and has no concept of either the scene that particular day and the days that followed, or how things are handled here in general.

Yeah you know now but who knew that was going to be the case on 9/11? To think that a building with floors gutted by fire and structural damage are just as secure as they were before that fact is what's absurd. Give it up.

And I'm not a kid. I grew up in the New York area and had been to the WTC more times then I can remember. I use to work at Exchange Place in Jersey City and had to travel into the city at least 3 times a week on the path that stopped right underneath the towers.

Just give it up. Stick to insulting people and leave the factual content to the adults.

 

[GT/CS]

Swing I have a couple of questions.
Have you ever been to a structure fire?
Have you ever been to a fire in an industrial setting?
If you had you would realize that they are loud and that there are many explosive sounds during the fire. There are any number of combustible substances in buildings and the simple fact of a room flashing over can sound like an explosion.
Have you ever seen even a small building collapse in person. I have and let me tell you those statements are not out of character. People use shorthand. They do not say "Get out of here the building has become unstable due to fire and we need to evacuate". They say "It is going to blow get out of here". Buildings almost always fall in also I must admit that I have never been involved in a collapse over 3 stories but I have never seen one fall over.
As far as your pictures did you ever consider they were caused by a sink hole? That would explain why they fell over.

I think those are earthquake pictures, which have absolutely nothing to do with the WTC7 situation.

 

[SDC]

After my debacle I will not try to quote from S.Dangler's message. But a couple of questions arise (to add to the question pile):

In comments on the Penthouse, you say something like the question is for Mr Jowenko to answer. Will he, then? Is he preparing a statement which we will all soon be able to consult? And whatever exactly he has said so far he has not, I think, produced any formal, written responses to questions or other formal statements. I don't mean interviews, or transcripts of comments. When I say "formal, written", I mean just that, By Carbonate of Soda!, I sure do. Without that, he has said (almost) nothing.

You are not qualified to interpret any of the existing evidence. Mr Jowenko would be, I gather, if he would do anything other than look at films. Let me hasten to add that I am no more qualified than you are. However, I can read written statements and arguments which support the "accident" (natural?) collapse as opposed to CD. You have none which support the other.

I've said somewhere that the eye is a liar; the untrained eye, and often the trained eye is only slightly better (without further analysis). Well, the (untrained) ear is too. References to "explosions" do not mean that explosives were used in a CD. This is I think the one millionth time that this has been said and I claim my prize.

The untrained, uneducated eye and the untrained, uneducated ear are liars.

 

[afinemadness]

I think those are earthquake pictures, which have absolutely nothing to do with the WTC7 situation.

That works. I figured it had something to do with the ground not holding up the structure

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Brilliant retort. Hostile and evasive. But in the end you still have not provided any physical evidence of your CD claim.

Thank You. Yes I did. Didn't you understand it?

But just not quite easy enough for you to quote them. More evasiveness.

Tsk Tsk can't even maneuver a mouse.

You might have missed this article, published ten days after the above:

Addressed that already. Did you not see this?

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.co...8131/27474.htm

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
First, the doctor of physics right after 9/11 said WTC brought down by explosive devices but later abruptly recanted. Federal Lawsuit contends he may have been unduly influenced by government officials with statements only being cleared up through legal discovery methods.
15 Jun 2005

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

He doesn't agree with you. You can slander him all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't agree with you. Also, in case you missed it when I said it earlier, Van Romero doesn't agree with you.

His truthful unbiased original expert opinion agrees with me.

His politically pressured revisionist lies agree with you.

In case you forgot…

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

BTW where's Blanchard's education? Come on chop chop

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Where did Jowenko get his?

Where did he go to school?

What was the last 12 jobs he did?

Were any for Jewish clients?

What was his mothers maiden name?

Was his father bald?

Did he prefer boxers or briefs?

Unless you can answer these questions he has no expertise.

So Blanchard's got no expert credentials.

next