Could a demolition team bring down WTC 7?

[rwguinn]

erm. No.
You see, on 11September 2001, 2 very big ariplanes were run into the sides of some very big buildings across the street from WTC 7.
This caused burning, heavy, and hot things to land on and in WTC7. Hot and burning things can set other things on fire. Heavy things can break other things when they fall on thim.
Ans so, because of the mean people who made airplanes crash into the two very big buildings across the street from WTC 7, WTC7 got partly broken, and was on fire.
When the good firemen came to put it out and save WTC 7, the two big buildings across the street fell down, hurting people and making the fire hydrants not work real good. The brave firemen Found out that WTC 7 was empty, and that there were people hurt when the 2 very big buildings fell down, and they decided to try to help people and left little WTC 7 to burn.
After several hours of burning, and with big wounds from the falling heavy stuff, little WTC 7 fell down too.
So you see, children, A demolition team cannot bring the building down, BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY GONE!

JC on a pogo stick! Wake up already
Din't use present and/or future tense when you are talking aboutthe past!
I suspect what you meant was "Could a Demolition team HAVE BROUGHT down WTC 7?"

 

[twinstead]

explosives can survive a fire? i didnt know that.

Hushaboom^TM is also fireproof.

 

[Gnu World Order]

Why even ask these questions? These questions are totally lost on truthers, as they believe that it is common sense that there is no way a building can collapse from the damage you described. Therefore, the conspirators also know the buildings can't collapse, so there is no reason to fear going in to plant the charges. Rather convenient logic isn't it?

Of course, and it would be a simple matter to go in for a couple of hours and place the explosives powerful enough to bring down the building (which, of course, the fire and earlier damage couldn't do).

 

[GStan]

Of course, and it would be a simple matter to go in for a couple of hours and place the explosives powerful enough to bring down the building (which, of course, the fire and earlier damage couldn't do).

Right on man. In the trutherverse, you and I could do it with a 12-pack of budlight, a couple flashlights, and 20 or 30 rolls of duct tape...just show me where the silent bombs go, and we'll knock that sucker down.

 

[GStan]

Of course, and it would be a simple matter to go in for a couple of hours and place the explosives powerful enough to bring down the building (which, of course, the fire and earlier damage couldn't do).

sry i'm so rude....

Welcome to the forum from one new member to another.

 

[TriskettheKid]

You know, one day I'd like to see the MythBusters blow something up with some of the stuff that CTers seem to think exists.

Can you just imagine what they could do with it? Think of the neat car myths involving explosions we'd be able to see now!

 

[Darth Rotor]

For example, what chain of coincidences led to zlaya's existence?

Theory: elderberries were involved. (Not so sure on the hamsters.)

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

No magz it couldnt.

WTC 7 was a working office building, and far too many people would have noticed were something a miss.

That's not an airtight position, pete. It presumes that covert acts are not possible if people who are not looking for a covert act are about. Do you see the problem with that?

But let's look at what the assertion was earlier in the thread.

Do you mean this team went into WTC 7 on 9/11/2001 and set the explosives?

Yes

The problem here is MaGZ's reliance, for this assertion, on a timeline that takes an evolution lasting days to weeks, professional demolition crews prepping a building for controlled demolition, and compressing it into a few hours.

This while firefighters are in the building, during a portion of the time, actively evacuating people and looking for all manner of trouble with a building that is on fire/damaged.

The time/task fit simply isn't there, for a controlled demolition.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Tell me this, Einsteen: Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the firefighters' oral testimonies and the photographs are a reasonable estimate of the state of WTC7 on the afternoon of 9/11. The building has a 20+ storey gash in the South face, the SW corner is visibly damaged, there are other holes low down on the South face, the building is bulging and leaning visibly, a transit has been applied to measure its structural movement, most of the floors above floor 5 are fully involved in fire, the lobby is badly damaged and contains large amounts of rubble, and the building is believed to be liable to collapse. Would you volunteer to go into that building carrying demolition explosives, strip away the fireproofing and internal walling to get access to the support columns, attach those explosive charges, attach detonators, attach wires to those detonators and run those wires back through the building? Would you go into a burning building, carrying explosives, knowing that your work in that building might require you to be there for a matter of hours, during which time the building might collapse anyway? Would you expect anyone to volunteer to do that?

Dave

How about a not so insane thought on your scenario: wireless radio transmission to detonate the charges.

What does that do for the complexity of the task? Well, all you don't have to do is run wires, but there is all that other work to do.

(Not sure if CD firms use wireless or not, I'd tend to think not, due to the risk of a spurious signal triggering a CD before it was all ready. Big safety risk.) That does not mean that "someone" would not use a wireless method. (Think: IED's in Iraq.)

DR

 

[beachnut]

Who made the call? My guess would be Dick Cheney. WTC 7 was the national security building for New York City. I think to bring it down would take a special national security team with the necessary explosives. Once the decision was made the fire department approached Silverstein and informed him of the plan. Silverstein agreed.

Please list all the people in the building, and I have talked to people who worked in the building and they were not in the government and they did not see your secret team of idiots setting up the CD. What happen to your stupid neonazi missile Your Majesty?

 

[stilicho]

Please list all the people in the building, and I have talked to people who worked in the building and they were not in the government and they did not see your secret team of idiots setting up the CD. What happen to your stupid neonazi missile Your Majesty?

Apart from the obvious foolishness of representing WTC7 as some sort of master HQ of the NWO--where they kept only copies of all their malevolent plans--there is a point I've brought up a couple of times on this thread. Namely, the original "motive" explained by rense.com and other conspiracy sites was that WTC7 contained only copies of SEC files on the corruption at Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and perhaps others. The argument, then, was that "Pull It" Silverstein was helping his fellow anarcho-business partners destroy the evidence to be used against them at their trials. The perpetrators of stock frauds were presumably going to get away with it as a result.

As it turned out, of course, the trials went on as planned and a lot of people went to prison, were forbidden from ever acting as directors of public companies, fined, or all three.

So, in the manner of the moving goalposts, this argument was dropped some time after early 2004 (when I had first seen it) and was unceremoniously replaced with this other idea that the NWO or somebody had their secret global HQ situated there and had to destroy it on 9/11 or risk getting exposed by, um, Alex Jones?

This whole WTC7 thing is exactly why anyone who was "sitting on the fence" would immediately discard the "truthers" as at least wrong and possibly dangerously insane. It was bad enough to characterise the FDNY as a demolitions company or the property owner as deploying a business plan to destroy his own assets. But now, with the motives continually changing for "controlled" demolition of WTC7, these people have been caught lying and then altering their story as events have unfolded since 2004.

 

[Hamradioguy]

explosives can survive a fire? i didnt know that.

Gee, neither did I, and I've worked with explosives for years. In fact one of the things I learned long before I obtained my State Blaster's License was that burning is how you SAFELY destroy explosives. Seems in a fire they simply burn but don't explode. I'd love to know what kind of explosives those evil Gubmint Agents used in WTC 7 that managed to resist all those fires.

 

[Sabrina]

Just as a point of edification for the individuals who believe it is possible WTC7 was demolished to destroy the paperwork therein: (from DoD Directive 5200.1 revised)

Chapter 6: Safeguarding

6-303 Emergency Planning

a. Plans shall be developed for the protection, removal, or destruction of classified material in case of fire, natural disaster, civil disturbance, terrorist activities, or enemy action, to minimize the risk of its compromise. The level of detail and amount of testing and rehearsal of these plans should be determined by an assessment of the risk of hostile action, natural disaster, or terrorist activity that might place the information in jeopardy.

b. Planning for the emergency protection (including emergency destruction under no-notice conditions) of classified COMSEC material shall be developed in accordance with requirements of National Telecommunications Information Systems Security Instruction (NTISSI) 4004.

c. When preparing emergency plans, consideration should be given to:

(1) Reduction of the amount of classified material on hand;
(2) Storage of less frequently used classified material at more secure locations; and
(3) Transfer of as much retained classified information to microforms or to removable automated information systems media as possible, thereby reducing its bulk.

Section 7


Disposition and Destruction of Classified Material

6-700 Policy

a. Classified documents and other material shall be retained within DoD organizations only if they are required for effective and efficient operation of the organization or if their retention is required by law or regulation. Documents that are no longer required for operational purposes shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 31 and 33) and appropriate implementing directives and records schedules. Material that has been identified for destruction shall continue to be protected, as appropriate, for its classification until it is actually destroyed. Destruction of classified documents and material shall be accomplished by means that eliminate risk of reconstruction of the classified information they contain.

b. Heads of the DoD Components shall ensure that management of retention of classified material is included in oversight and evaluation of program effectiveness. Each activity with classified holdings should establish at least one day each year when specific attention and effort is focused on disposition of unneeded classified material ("clean-out day").

6-701 Methods and Standards

a. Classified information identified for destruction shall be destroyed completely to preclude recognition or reconstruction of the classified information in accordance with procedures and methods prescribed by the Head of the DoD Component or their designee. Methods and equipment used to routinely destroy classified information include burning, cross-cut shredding, wet-pulping, mutilation, chemical decomposition or pulverizing.

b. Technical guidance concerning appropriate methods, equipment, and standards for the destruction of classified electronic media, processing equipment components, and the like may be obtained by contacting the Directorate for Information Systems Security, National Security Agency, Ft. Meade, MD 20755. Specifications concerning appropriate equipment and standards for destruction of other storage media may be obtained from the General Services Administration.

I emphasized the relevant portions, but feel free to research it yourselves. Nowhere in that directive does it state that demolishing a building is an acceptable method of destroying classified material. And given the amount of paper blown throughout lower Manhatten that day, I think we can safely say that some small percentage of it was likely classified material, and therefore if the building were demolished on purpose, it would have been done in direct violation of this directive and would not have safeguarded information AT ALL. I CANNOT stress that enough; it is an absolutely LUDICROUS theory to state that the building was demolished to destroy information. So please, stop saying that. That's all I ask; continue to spout your theories that it was demolished all you want if that's your desire, but you need to leave out the idea that it was done to destroy classified material.

 

[pomeroo]

Gee, neither did I, and I've worked with explosives for years. In fact one of the things I learned long before I obtained my State Blaster's License was that burning is how you SAFELY destroy explosives. Seems in a fire they simply burn but don't explode. I'd love to know what kind of explosives those evil Gubmint Agents used in WTC 7 that managed to resist all those fires.

Hushaboom is fireproof.

Hushaboom is silent.

Hushaboom is incredibly powerful.

Hell, Hushaboom doesn't even exist.

 

[pomeroo]

Just as a point of edification for the individuals who believe it is possible WTC7 was demolished to destroy the paperwork therein: (from DoD Directive 5200.1 revised)

Chapter 6: Safeguarding





I emphasized the relevant portions, but feel free to research it yourselves. Nowhere in that directive does it state that demolishing a building is an acceptable method of destroying classified material. And given the amount of paper blown throughout lower Manhatten that day, I think we can safely say that some small percentage of it was likely classified material, and therefore if the building were demolished on purpose, it would have been done in direct violation of this directive and would not have safeguarded information AT ALL. I CANNOT stress that enough; it is an absolutely LUDICROUS theory to state that the building was demolished to destroy information. So please, stop saying that. That's all I ask; continue to spout your theories that it was demolished all you want if that's your desire, but you need to leave out the idea that it was done to destroy classified material.

Sabrina, you have made a logical argument employing actual evidence. Consider that you are asking idiots who constantly spout sheer idiocy to desist from saying something idiotic because it is idiotic. Is this approach likely to bear fruit?

 

[lisabob2]

I was wondering does asking questions change the facts or evidence of 9-11? The most logical thing would be to have a real investigation, open & independent. Nist's own James Quintiere wants a new independent investigation because nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" Any reasonable person can see the cover up attempt by the Goverment. Investigations started over year later, investigators blocked from seeking answers.
Only a real independent investigation can give scientific answers, and the real answers of 9-11 are very important whether it is building safety issues or false flag operation.

 

[Gravy]

lisabob, since you cite Quintiere, who worked for NIST many years ago, I'm sure you're aware that he's done studies that lead him to the conclusion that the Twin Towers would likely have collapsed from the severity of their fires alone, with no prior structural damage done by the aircraft, and no fireproofing removal.

Your comments on Quintiere's work?

Your comment that the investigations began over a year after 9/11 show your utter ignorance of this subject. Apparently you're referring to the formation of the 9/11 Commission, not to the world's largest criminal investigation that preceded it.

 

[gumboot]

Investigations started over year later, investigators blocked from seeking answers.

When did the first investigation into 9/11 commence?

-Gumboot

 

[chillzero]

erm. No.
You see, on 11September 2001, 2 very big ariplanes were run into the sides of some very big buildings across the street from WTC 7.
This caused burning, heavy, and hot things to land on and in WTC7. Hot and burning things can set other things on fire. Heavy things can break other things when they fall on thim.
Ans so, because of the mean people who made airplanes crash into the two very big buildings across the street from WTC 7, WTC7 got partly broken, and was on fire.
When the good firemen came to put it out and save WTC 7, the two big buildings across the street fell down, hurting people and making the fire hydrants not work real good. The brave firemen Found out that WTC 7 was empty, and that there were people hurt when the 2 very big buildings fell down, and they decided to try to help people and left little WTC 7 to burn.
After several hours of burning, and with big wounds from the falling heavy stuff, little WTC 7 fell down too.
So you see, children, A demolition team cannot bring the building down, BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY GONE!

JC on a pogo stick! Wake up already
Din't use present and/or future tense when you are talking aboutthe past!
I suspect what you meant was "Could a Demolition team HAVE BROUGHT down WTC 7?"

This is similar to what I was going to say.

Could a demolition team have brought down WTC7?
Yes, I believe they could with adequate time, resources and planning.

Did a demolition team bring down WTC7?
No, I don't believe so. Such planning and resources would have involved too many publicly visible events, and the timescale would too long for what was available on 911.

 

[GT/CS]

I was wondering does asking questions change the facts or evidence of 9-11? The most logical thing would be to have a real investigation, open & independent. Nist's own James Quintiere wants a new independent investigation because nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" Any reasonable person can see the cover up attempt by the Goverment. Investigations started over year later, investigators blocked from seeking answers.
Only a real independent investigation can give scientific answers, and the real answers of 9-11 are very important whether it is building safety issues or false flag operation.

We really don't need to spend millions of dollars on investigations every time a handful of people (a good percentage of them not even from the US) go off their meds and start screaming about conspiracies.