Could a demolition team bring down WTC 7?

[gumboot]

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.

To be honest I'm not sure they could, or would ever attempt it.

WTC7 was almost half again as tall as the tallest building ever demolished by controlled demolition, and that building had a much larger footprint making a neat controlled implosion much easier.

In contrast WTC7 was both taller and "skinnier" which are factors that make a demolition very hard. In addition WTC7 was built over a coned station which you wouldn't want a building falling on top of, and it was very close to neighbouring buildings.

-Gumboot

 

[chillzero]

To be honest I'm not sure they could, or would ever attempt it.

WTC7 was almost half again as tall as the tallest building ever demolished by controlled demolition, and that building had a much larger footprint making a neat controlled implosion much easier.

In contrast WTC7 was both taller and "skinnier" which are factors that make a demolition very hard. In addition WTC7 was built over a coned station which you wouldn't want a building falling on top of, and it was very close to neighbouring buildings.

-Gumboot

Fair points, thank you.

Although ... I bet in a CT mind, what you said becomes a reason how they could do it .... if they intended to bring down the neighbourhood with it, which clearly 'they' did because ... etc.

 

[gumboot]

Although ... I bet in a CT mind

*shudder*

Now there's a scary thought.

-Gumboot

 

[Sabrina]

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?

Possibly not, but you can't blame me for trying. I'm not asking them to stop spouting their theories that WTC7 was a demolition (even though I think it's utterly ludicrous) I'm just asking them to quit citing the premise that it was done to destroy information that in reality was scattered all over lower Manhattan following the collapses of the three buildings. Yeah, a lot of it burned up, but not all of it, and my point was that it is considered ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE in government circles to completely and utterly destroy all classified information if scheduled for destruction so that it CANNOT be reconstructed. There was very likely some classified information within the documents scattered throughout the city, and that likelihood right there is enough for me to completely dismiss the theory that the building was demolished to destroy the information it contained. It just isn't a certain enough method of destruction for me to condone it being cited as a possible motive.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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?

I think we should never totally abandon hope .

Hans

 

[gumboot]

Possibly not, but you can't blame me for trying. I'm not asking them to stop spouting their theories that WTC7 was a demolition (even though I think it's utterly ludicrous) I'm just asking them to quit citing the premise that it was done to destroy information that in reality was scattered all over lower Manhattan following the collapses of the three buildings. Yeah, a lot of it burned up, but not all of it, and my point was that it is considered ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE in government circles to completely and utterly destroy all classified information if scheduled for destruction so that it CANNOT be reconstructed. There was very likely some classified information within the documents scattered throughout the city, and that likelihood right there is enough for me to completely dismiss the theory that the building was demolished to destroy the information it contained. It just isn't a certain enough method of destruction for me to condone it being cited as a possible motive.

My favourite argument is that they blew the building up to conceal the paperwork that revealed they intended to blow the building up.

-Gumboot

 

[Sabrina]

Circular reasoning at it's best.

Or worst, depending on how you look at it.

 

[Gnu World Order]

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.

Lisabob, who would perform this "independent" investigation? Who would appoint the investigators? Who would fund their work?

And what should they look at that wasn't looked at multiple times by previous investigations? If you have read the results of the previous investigations, what do you think might be different in the outcome of your proposed "real" investigation?

 

[fuelair]

I see, like so many other troofer nuts, MZ has left the building.

 

[Sabrina]

I can recall one time when I had to destroy classified information my unit had been maintaining. We were out in the field, so my NCO and my soldier dug a hole in the ground and proceeded to burn the documents. Every so often we'd use a stick or something to stir up the ashes and be sure that everything was burning to ash; we didn't want to leave any bits of still legible paper at all. Hence my incredulity that someone could possibly believe that the building was demolished to destroy the paperwork/information and yet still scattered thousands of pieces of paper over the city and left still readable hard drives intact within the buildings themselves. You see my issue?

 

[lapman]

[twoofer mode]

Methods and equipment used to routinely destroy classified information include burning, cross-cut shredding, wet-pulping, mutilation, chemical decomposition or pulverizing.

Demolishing a building would burn, mutilate and pulverize the documents so it would be a DOD authorized way of disposing of sensitive documents.[/twoofer mode]

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Anyone entering a burning building with explosives, deserves to be and probably will be blown up.
A gas explosion which commonly occur in fires can cause enough shock to set the explosives off.
Preplanted explosives would only burn.
There is no way anyone with any brains would do it!
The Idea that a covert operations team would do it, is Crazier than I am .

 

[Sabrina]

[twoofer mode]
Demolishing a building would burn, mutilate and pulverize the documents so it would be a DOD authorized way of disposing of sensitive documents.[/twoofer mode]

Not 100% destruction however, which is my point.

 

[lapman]

Not 100% destruction however, which is my point.

Well, let's not get nitpicky.

 

[soylent]

This sounds to me like you are arguing that WTC 7 could sustain any amount of damage inflicted on one side coupled with any amount of fire damage without collapsing or requiring demolition. Is that correct?

Anything except secret noiseless NWO explosives.

 

[Sabrina]

Well, let's not get nitpicky.

I'll get nitpicky if I wanna, and you can't stop me!

Neener neener neener.... *chuckles*

 

[MaGZ]

No, you miss my point. Why would you do it AT ALL? The building was perfectly secure on 9/10. WHY BLOW IT UP?

WTC 7 had to be pulled because it was in danger of falling toward the southwest.

 

[MaGZ]

Why did they ask him and what would they have done if he said no? you have some imagination.

Cheney was in charge on 9/11. He gave the order to shoot down the flight over PA. A lot of things happened that day that were never communicated to George Bush.

 

[MaGZ]

I prefer to think your interventions are motivated by general compassion. And strong principles of discipline.



I certainly won't.

Meanwhile we are faced with the idea that Cheney could have ordered, using his well-known unlimited vice-presidential powers, that the building be destroyed, in order to get rid of incriminating papers.

The stupidity (can I say that) inherent in the idea is that if Cheney or whoever really had the power to blow up a building, and have the people sorting through the rubble hand any papers they found to the Men In Black for destruction, he had the power to order a man disguised as a janitor to go in and shred the stuff in secret. MagZ and Zlaya would never have known about it.

Secondly, fire is a better way to dispose of papers than demolition - though it's a long way from reliable. Why didn't they just let the fires burn?

But if the destruction of papers is a dumb reason to blow up the building, then what's left of their theory? Thousands of people died when 1 & 2 came down. Nobody died AFAIAA from the fall of 7. It was a very, very minor event that day. What was the point? It obviously wasn't to destroy papers, because that is a totally dumb idea.

As with so much in the CT world, it just evaporates when you look at it closely.

The vital national security information in WTC 7 were secured by the government and not destroyed. You seemed to have missed this point.

 

[MaGZ]

So the WTC towers were rigged up with bombs before 9/11.....but then WCT7 was done that very day?

Oh my God.

I have never said the Twin Towers were a controlled demolition.

WTC 7 was rigged that day when they realized the building might fall to the southwest.