Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[twinstead]

Localized collapses. And even if it didn't collapse it still proves my point. An office fire can wreck havoc on steel beams. It won't melt it but it will turn said beams into a pretzel.

Well, yea, I suppose it didn't collapse like WTC7. But every part of it that was built like WTC7, and the WTC1 and 2, did indeed collapse.

 

[technoextreme]

Well, yea, I suppose it didn't collapse like WTC7. But every part of it that was built like WTC7, and the WTC1 and 2, did indeed collapse.

True. Though if you go though the ASCE document linked on wikipedia you will find:

electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure.
The collapse of WTC 7 caused damage to the Verizon building and 30 West Broadway.
The partial collapse of WTC 5 was not initiated by debris and is possibly a result of fireinduced
connection failures. The collapse of these structures is particularly significant in
that, prior to these events, no protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of
large commercial construction in the United States, had ever experienced a fire-induced
collapse. Thus, these events may highlight new building vulnerabilities, not previously
believed to exist.

Essentially WTC 7 and WTC 5 were lumped together.

 

[A W Smith]

How many people do you think have heard about WTC7 collapse, and how many do you think even care?

This was a perfect moment to destroy any evidence, the whole country was in chaos, so what's the difference if one more building falls right?

Claiming that using 'shredder' would somehow be more logical, makes no sense, since the plane attacks, pentagon damage, flight 93, and building collapses causes such a shock that the PNAC boys could have gotten anything they wanted done at that moment. You know Lay is very close to the PNAC boys? Poor Lay...

And they did get everything they wanted right, thanks to people like Gravy, and you, no?

Yes one way to destroy Enron documents is to risk blowing them all over lower Manhattan. I hadn't thought of that. Making sense of the documents later would take a heck of a lot of re-collating. Got a stapler?

 

[johnny karate]

Zlaya, you chose to ignore this portion of my previous post:

Zlaya, since you are so thoroughly convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and couldn't possibly have been damaged enough by debris and fire to collapse, what do you think about what the experts referenced here who disagree? Are they lying or just mistaken?

Would you kindly offer a response?

 

[Dr Harry Rein]

How many people do you think have heard about WTC7 collapse, and how many do you think even care?

This was a perfect moment to destroy any evidence, the whole country was in chaos, so what's the difference if one more building falls right?

Claiming that using 'shredder' would somehow be more logical, makes no sense, since the plane attacks, pentagon damage, flight 93, and building collapses causes such a shock that the PNAC boys could have gotten anything they wanted done at that moment. You know Lay is very close to the PNAC boys? Poor Lay...

And they did get everything they wanted right, thanks to people like Gravy, and you, no?

How did the PNAC boys know in advance that the debris from the north tower would cause just enough damage to WTC7, so that no one (outside you) would suspect that it was deliberately destroyed? Suppose the tower fell in such a way that WTC7 was not damaged? Wouldn't it then look suspicious if the building fell? How did the conspirators know that WTC7 would suffer enough damage and fire so as to cover their evil scheme ?

 

[stateofgrace]

How many people do you think have heard about WTC7 collapse, and how many do you think even care?

This was a perfect moment to destroy any evidence, the whole country was in chaos, so what's the difference if one more building falls right?

Claiming that using 'shredder' would somehow be more logical, makes no sense, since the plane attacks, pentagon damage, flight 93, and building collapses causes such a shock that the PNAC boys could have gotten anything they wanted done at that moment. You know Lay is very close to the PNAC boys? Poor Lay...

And they did get everything they wanted right, thanks to people like Gravy, and you, no?

As well as the questions other members have asked you I would ask a few about the comment highlighted.

Perfect moment? Six hours after WTC 1 and 2 had collapsed, the dust had settled and the worlds media had gathered and was broadcasting live to the entire planet and this was the “perfect moment “?

Why didn't they demolish it under cover of the dust cloud from the collpase of the towers? Why wait six hours? Why allow it to be filmed at all?

 

[Totovader]

He saw a video edited to take out information that might lead him to believe that it was not a controlled demolition.

Is that not being misled?

I was wondering the same thing... Earthborn seems to be saying he wasn't misled in being misled.

I'm confused.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Ohhh, that evil Jeffery Skilling. And let's not forget his brother is active in weather control programs for the NWO.

Yeah that "controlled destruction" didn't destroy enough of the evidence to keep Skilling from being convicted.

 

[johnny karate]

Yeah, you've got to wonder why the NWO would let one of their own take such a hard fall.

 

[pomeroo]

How did the PNAC boys know in advance that the debris from the north tower would cause just enough damage to WTC7, so that no one (outside you) would suspect that it was deliberately destroyed? Suppose the tower fell in such a way that WTC7 was not damaged? Wouldn't it then look suspicious if the building fell? How did the conspirators know that WTC7 would suffer enough damage and fire so as to cover their evil scheme ?

Funny you should mention this. I joined the demonstration outside the ABC studio last spring when the loons were congratulating Rosie on being almost as stupid as themselves. I asked one pimply-faced adolescent, who assured me that he was a structural engineer, if the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy would have blown up building 7 even if no falling debris had severely damaged it. For a fleeting moment, he appeared pensive. You could detect a faint burning odor. Aha! He had the answer: WTC 7 wasn't damaged. Silly me.

 

[Garb]

Powers that be do everything just because they can. Do you think you have any saying in the matter?

Everything because they can? Hitler invaded Poland just cause he could? The Japenese bombed Pearl Harbor and declared war on us just cause they could?

You don't do things without thinking of the consequences of them. Not at that level.

 

[Arus808]

Correct. But that does not prove he was deliberately mislead, only that he was rather quick to come up with a conclusion after the first video he was shown.

when he was shown the video, he was given the context of why he was being shown the video,.

he didn't even know that wtc7 collapsed that day.

Not during the interview.

not just during the interview; in his subsequent statements after the video was made.

 

[Zlaya]

Yes one way to destroy Enron documents is to risk blowing them all over lower Manhattan. I hadn't thought of that. Making sense of the documents later would take a heck of a lot of re-collating. Got a stapler?

they certainly didn't blow up all over the place...

 

[Zlaya]

Give some examples, with proof of buildings blown up by powers that be in the US that killed people. Solid proof not Fetzer "say so crap".

Sources, examples and yes, I do have a say in the matter.

Please name all the PNAC boys and list their assets and armies they control. With sources please. (please leave out Dick's shot gun, his wife took it away)

Please research it yourself,this is not a joke.

 

[eeyore1954]

How many people do you think have heard about WTC7 collapse, and how many do you think even care?

This was a perfect moment to destroy any evidence, the whole country was in chaos, so what's the difference if one more building falls right?

Claiming that using 'shredder' would somehow be more logical, makes no sense, since the plane attacks, pentagon damage, flight 93, and building collapses causes such a shock that the PNAC boys could have gotten anything they wanted done at that moment. You know Lay is very close to the PNAC boys? Poor Lay...

And they did get everything they wanted right, thanks to people like Gravy, and you, no?

Has there ever been any reports of the Enron trial or investigations being hampered because of lost documents stored at the WTC 7 building? Or did the people prosecuting the case just say oh well the documents were lost lets forget about it?

 

[Mancman]

they certainly didn't blow up all over the place...

 

[Earthborn]

when he was shown the video, he was given the context of why he was being shown the video,.

There is no evidence of that at all. What is true is that the original documentary edited his interview within a context.

he didn't even know that wtc7 collapsed that day.

Difficult to say. What is certain is that when he saw the video of the collapsing WTC7, he did not know that he was looking at a video of a building that collapsed the same day. If he knew that WTC7 collapsed, it may have been that he did not recognise the building in the video as WTC7.

not just during the interview;

Here is the video again. Tell me, when was he told during the interview that the building contained "various government offices, and papers dealing with Enron" ? The answer is really simple: at absolutely no point during the interview does anyone tell him that. What is true is that the documentary ended in the conclusion that this was the case and Jowenko likely saw it and believed this conclusion. But the airing of the documentary is obviously after the interview.

 

[Earthborn]

Earthborn seems to be saying he wasn't misled in being misled.

I'm saying that there is a difference between interviewing someone in a way that might mislead someone, and intentionally misleading someone. The former can be explained by "stupidity", the latter assumes "malice".

 

[WildCat]

The old "size is everything" argument.

Yep. I could remove the second floor of a 2-story building and the first floor will not collapse. OTOH, if I remove the second floor of a 6 story building the whole thing's coming down.

Maybe even troofers can understand that?

 

[Totovader]

I'm saying that there is a difference between interviewing someone in a way that might mislead someone, and intentionally misleading someone. The former can be explained by "stupidity", the latter assumes "malice".

I think it's quite clear what the intention was- not only by interviewing a demolition expert (with no expertise in the specific field) but also by the tone of the rest of the documentary.

If they were interested in his informed opinion, then they would not have sprung it up on him in the first place- and they would not have spoon-fed him the information as you pointed out. In order to avoid exactly what happened, the expert is supposed to be given the material in advance, and be allowed to have an informed opinion, instead of a self-defeating position based on a pre-selected portion of the information.

I completely agree with Hanlon's Razor- but in this scenario, it's quite clear that it was intentional.