Split Thread WTC7 is a problem for the 9/11 official story

[bill smith]

Someone call a press conferece! Bill Smith has identified the demolition crews! Time to open an investigation into why the 7 collapse looks to many kind of like a CD, and why a few are convinced it then must be one despite no coherent body of evidence to support that imagining. New investigation phase one will be the same friggin science again to show again that it was not a CD, phase two an intensive probing of the mind of Bill Smith, and a sampling of others. Maybe Jim Hoffman can step up as a pioneer in convincing others. Only then can we get at the root of the problem here.

Temecula - great post above. Y'know, if you listen close to "tonight tonight tonight" you can catch some very Charlie Brown ennui... maybe it was finally kicking the football he was so sure was happening tonight... This might just be something! Delay the PC, we'll make it twofer!

'' by Scott Creighton
While attempting to find out who the “special engineer” was that accurately predicted the collapse of Building 7 five hours before it fell, I ran across an article written by Brett Blanchard, Director of Field Operations for Protec Documentation Services. In that article, he lets it slip that “several” demolition teams were on site at Ground Zero before building 7 came down ''
http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

 

[twinstead]

So you think it looks so much like a 'blast' demolition that it can't possibly be anything but a 'blast' demolition, and that leads you to believe it was not a 'blast' demolition, but a 'melt' one, which would involve a more gradual removal of support and hence be expected to look more like the NIST scenario than like a 'blast' demolition?

Do you not realise how self-contradictory your position is?

Thanks, Dave. I was trying to formulate a post in a similar vein, but you nailed it. Bill makes NO sense whatsoever, yet he has the cajones to lecture US.

 

[tuc0]

Do you not realise how self-contradictory your position is?

Dave

Is that a trick question?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I realise that this is a very difficult question for you to answer, but when you were a Truther did you think that WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition ?

Bill:

Here's a very simple "why" and "how" regarding 9/11:

Why: To make a spectacular impression by striking a high-profile target on an enemy's home soil.

How: Hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

Now, your turn. A simple, direct "why" and "how" for building 7.

 

[twinstead]

'' by Scott Creighton
While attempting to find out who the “special engineer” was that accurately predicted the collapse of Building 7 five hours before it fell, I ran across an article written by Brett Blanchard, Director of Field Operations for Protec Documentation Services. In that article, he lets it slip that “several” demolition teams were on site at Ground Zero before building 7 came down ''
http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

So you think WTC7 was prepped for demolition sometime between when the first plane hit the WTC and WTC7 collapsed by these demolition teams?

 

[DC]

And we all know that if there is a problem with WTC7 there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story.

No.

 

[Drudgewire]

Now, your turn. A simple, direct "why" and "how" for building 7.

"Crap, we brought too much nano-thermite. Now wha... heeeey, good idea."

 

[Grizzly Bear]

For he rest I think the building was brought down by using a 'melt' technique rather than a 'blast' one..

How can there be 'melt' if there were no beams that showed evidence of temperatures higher than 200oC according to AE911truth? You can't have it both ways sir.

 

[bill smith]

You're right! They cleverly caused the collapse of a nearby skyscraper by crashing an airliner into it, raining debris on building 7 and catching it on fire, thereby weakening the support structures and causing its collapse through "melting".

Rube Goldberg would be proud!

The way I see it is this:-

WTC1 and WTC2 had explosives/incendiaries buit in. So did WTC7. As far as we can tell none of he other WTC buildings did. WTC 1 and WTC2 were struck by airliners and subsequently collapsed while WTC7 had some unlikely looking fires ad also collapsed several hours later.

The only difference between the Twin Towers and WTC7 was therefore the absence of an airliner.

Then I thought 'perhaps an airliner was meant to hit WTC7 too ''- but for some reason it did not arrive so the perps lit some fires on various floors of the building in the hope that they would connect up and cause a big enough fire to allow the bilding to be demolished under cover of the blaze. Unfortunately the fire did not eally catch and they had to go ahead and demolish the building anyway at 5:20 in the afternoon.

Boston Logan Airport: Flight 93 got stuck on the runway and could not take off for an hour aafter it's scheduled departure time. Obvously t was now too late to try to crash it into WTC7 so they flew it out over rural Pennsylvania while they decided what to do with it.

You see how neat this is ? Three airliners, three buildings and no mess in Pennsylvania.

 

[dtugg]

109 days, bs.

 

[CHF]

Congratulations bill smith, you just graduated to the level of Richard Gage.

Gage: "The WTC was a classic controlled demoltion!"

Me: "Why can't we hear the noises from the charges?"

Gage: "Cuz it was actually a thermite demolition."

 

[twinstead]

The way I see it is this:-

WTC1 and WTC2 had explosives/incendiaries buit in. So did WTC7. As far as we can tell none of he other WTC buildings did. WTC 1 and WTC2 were struck by airliners and subsequently collapsed while WTC7 had some unlikely looking fires ad also colapsed several hours later.

The only defference between the Twin Towers and WTC7 was therefore the absence of an airliner.

Then I thought 'perhaps an airliner was meant to hit WTC7 too ''- but for some reason it did not arrive so the perps lit some fires on various floors of the building in the hope that they would connect up and cause a big enough fire to allow the bilding to be demoished under cover of the blaze. Unfortunately the fire did not eally catch and they had to go ahead and demolish the building anyway at 5:20 in the afternoon.

Boston Logan Airport: Flight 93 got stuck on the runway and could not take off for an gour aafter it's scheduled departure time. Obvously t was now too late to try to crash it into WTC7 so they flew it out over rural Pennsylvania while they decided what to do with it.

You see how neat this is ? Three airliners, three buildings and no mess in Pannsylvania.

Yea. Investigation is cool when you can just make stuff up. In the real world though you'd need, you know, evidence and stuff. But, carry on. You are after all just musing on a relatively obscure internet forum. But, when the "trials" begin, you might want to get some real investigators on the job, because if they just do the same crap you are doing now they'll be thrown out of court.

 

[CHF]

The way I see it is this:-

WTC1 and WTC2 had explosives/incendiaries buit in.

But bill, you have no evidence.

So did WTC7.

Again, no evidence.

Then I thought 'perhaps an airliner was meant to hit WTC7 too ''- but for some reason it did not arrive so the perps lit some fires on various floors of the building in the hope that they would connect up and cause a big enough fire to allow the bilding to be demoished under cover of the blaze.

So Flight 93 was for WTC7 and when it didn't show up the perps waited for seven hours or so, letting the dust clear from the sky, and then demolished WTC7 in broad daylight with thermite.

Brilliant.

Imagination rocks, bill, but it's not evidence.

 

[Toke]

There are similarities between wtc 7 and cd, one of them is the general downward direction of the collapse.

 

[RedIbis]

Yea. Investigation is cool when you can just make stuff up. In the real world though you'd need, you know, evidence and stuff.

Without relying on speculation what evidence supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis?

 

[twinstead]

Without relying on speculation what evidence supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis?

Nope. I'm not the one making a claim. The commonly-held narrative of what happened to the WTC7 is out there for all to see and scrutinize. The fact is, the building collapsed, and NO evidence that it was caused by anything other than fires and damage has been found.

You disagree? Prove it.

 

[bill smith]

But bill, you have no evidence.



Again, no evidence.



So Flight 93 was for WTC7 and when it didn't show up the perps waited for seven hours or so, letting the dust clear from the sky, and then demolished WTC7 in broad daylight with thermite.

Brilliant.

Imagination rocks, bill, but it's not evidence.

Recalibrating,resequencing and testing of the order of the melts to account for the change in circumstances would explain that. The fires also needed time to catch. In the end they had to demolish it before the fires went out altogether and totally removed any reason for the building to have fallen down.

 

[CHF]

Recaibrating,resequencing and testing of the order of the melts to account for the change in circumstances would explain that. Th fires also needed time to catch. In the end they had to demolish it before the fires went out altogether and totally removed any reason for the building to have fallen down.

Again bill, this is just you making stuff up.

 

[bill smith]

Again bill, this is just you making stuff up.

It's an hypothesis and a damn sight stronger one than Bazant's on WTC1.

 

[dtugg]

It's an hypothesis and a damn sight stronger one than Bazant's on WTC1.

LOL.