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

[dudalb]

 

[Justin39640]

What other nonsense ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=144497

 

[Toke]

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Your link is not very good.

 

[Justin39640]

Your link is not very good.

darn i was trying to link to bills post history
shucks

 

[Toke]

darn i was trying to link to bills post history
shucks

I see, that does contain a lot of.

What other nonsense ?

 

[Horatius]

I'm thinking Maxphoton's sister. Or at least they know each other.

Please. Max actually had a sense of humour, not to mention a theory about 9/11 "inside jobs" that wasn't just a pathetic cut'N'paste of other peoples' nonsense.


BS isn't fit to shine Max's shoes.

 

[jaydeehess]

No the stage was New York on 9/11.

No, the attacks occured in Manhattan and Arlington. The Capitol bldg is only a few miles from the Pentagon, as the aircraft flies. You don't get to brush aside facts that you don't like, bill.
It would make sense to attack two separated areas especially if one is targeting high profile addresses(which WTC 7 is not).

They had the cameras all set up and running for the arrival of flight 93. That was to be the epic fireball when it dived into the roof of WTC7 with the whole Nation watching live.. A real BIGGIE.

.

Riight, two aircraft, one caught live by dozens of cameras, was not spectacular,,, but a third one would be by gum.

I ometimes think

Wrong!

that there was something in the east Penthouse that would have helped to make the fireball even bigger. Imagine that total impact on the American psyche as the cameras panned back and forth ?.

Why would any cameras be set up and focused on WTC 7 at that time?

These guys did not believe that 'less is more '. When 93 didn't arrive they caused the Penthouse to fall into the building first with the rest of the building falling on top of it. Otherwise the Penthpouse would have been on top of the rubble and whatever was inside might have been seen

As mentioned many times, bill, it makes no sense whatsoever to complicate a plan so thoroughly as you speculate was done(that's the 'nonsense').

Once again, why risk all your plans for domination by complicating a plan which would acheive the same result (war in the ME) if all you do is arrange for planes to fly into bldgs and leave it at that?

 

[jaydeehess]

I forget bill, do you or do you not believe that Flight 93 crashed in Shankesville?
.

Bill?

That does not answer the question as to why not just actually fly aircraft into the buildings and let that be the 'shock and awe ' attack.

Having 3 domestic American aircraft hijacked and flown into targets representing American power and wealth IS DEFINATELY a 'shock and awe' attack. It immediately kills the people on board and does billions of dollars in damage even if the structures do not collapse.

Want proof? How many national and local TV stations were NOT at the site, or showing a feed from someone who was, by the time the second plane hit?
I ask it that way because that is a smaller number than those who were there or taking a feed from one that was.
Some cable specialty channels were interrupting their programming to take live feeds from stations that were there, IIRC WTBS was one.
Internationally both the BBC and the Canadian CBC were live from Manhattan when the second plane hit.
Do you still contend that without buildings collapsing and only hundreds dead rather than thousands, this would not be 'shock and awe'?

bill?

Your contention that WTC 7 was included in this vast complicated plan does not fit with the details of the attacks that succeded. The towers are world renowned and known, as is the Pentagon. WTC 7 is no more well known that any of hundreds of high rises on the eastern seaboard.
Hitting a casino in Atlantic City would have been more in line with the selection of targets than WTC 7.

bill?

Furthermore exactly what does a departure delay have to do with not having the hijackers actually continue towards NYC?

Why not just continue the planned attack even if its a little later than planned? After all you contend that WTC 7 would be the third in order to have more cameras on scene. When did the cameras that were there leave, bill?


bill?

Few would dispute that the administration took full and cynical advantage of the attacks to push through measures they had wated to put in place such as a new military push in the middle east.

However, if the diabolical plan was to garner, specifically, war in Afghanistan and Iraq, then that plan would naturally have included among the supposed hijackers, a few Afghanis and Iraqis. There were none, not a one, nada, zip, zilch.
Instead they were predominantly from Saudi Arabia, a basically friendly country to the USA(others, IIRRC were Jordanian and Syrian). In a diabolical plan to garner war in the ME that is the single stupidest thing one could do. Would have made getting into Iraq a lot easier and perhaps persuaded a few more allies to join the fray had the hijackers been Iraqi, no? Perhaps they could have all been Syrian. Syria is not exactly on best terms with the USA and would certainly have pleased the Israelis had the USA invaded Syria. Ditto for Lebanon. Hell, with Lebanon you get two for the price of one if the Syrians object.
Jordan has no oil, there is really no utility in any hijacker being said to be Jordanian.
What about Libya? There's oil there, no hijackers from Libya though.
How about Iran? Yes, Iran, the home of the regeime that gave the USA a black eye a couple of decades ago, held Americans hostage for 400 days. No hijackers from Iran though.
Bahrain, lots of oil and its tiny to boot, perfect for invasion. No hijackers from Bahrain. Qatar, same. U.A.E, same.
Yemen, well who wants Yemen anyway?

,,, but nope, the home countries of the hijackers were said instead to be from nominal allies(discounting Syria) of the USA. WOW, that makes absolutly no sense whatsoever, on any planet I can think of. What planet do you spend most of your time on, bill?
Hey, what about Somalia,, oooh there's bones to pick there that the American Public would have jumped on.

Oh, yeah, your answer to that is along the lines of "that's exactly what they want you to think".
Change your name to 'Les Nessman'.

 

[TruthersLie]

<snip>
Instead they were predominantly from Saudi Arabia, a basically friendly country to the USA(others, IIRRC were Jordanian and Syrian).

Hey J. About the hijackers, 15 were from Saudi, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon. (so pretty much all 19 were from countries who are "friendly" with the US).


(the two from the UAE were from Ras Al Khaimah (where I live and work now... I have met both families.. very nice folks, who KNOW their sons were involved, and who know they are dead... so no living hijackers from RAK))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#List_of_the_hijackers

 

[TheBigKahuna]

Originally Posted by TheBigKahuna
Guess your not aware of some of the unique design features in WTC 7. It was built over the con ed substation which meant a lot of shifting of vertical loads to run into the structure of the substation. Start eliminating support from one end of a horizontal steel beam in that situation results in the sum of the forces on that beam no longer equaling zero (case of static equilibrium is sum of forces = 0 = ma so for m > 0 result is a = 0) then the mass times the acceleration is no longer zero and, as mass is always greater than zero, the acceleration must be greater than zero which means that beam is going to move. The laws of physics accept no other result. When that beam moves, the structural integrity of the building is compromised. If memory serves, there was also a large atrium in WTC 7 which would mean even more shifting of loads with horizontal beams. Maybe someone on this forum can confirm that.

This is a common misconception that even NIST admits did not play a role in the collapse.

Quote:
The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.



Does that mean you're conceding that NIST was right? It says it "did not play a significant role in the collapse," not that this design feature played no role in the collapse.

 

[TheBigKahuna]

If flight 93 had hit it's intended target- WTC7 then we would have had three planes and three buidings. No mess in Shanksville and no problem with WTC7. All nice and neat and simple.

The Pentagon was turned into a honeypot/trap. The reason here was to develop the template of the typical 9/11 conspiracy theorist' They needed this urgently and as quickly as possible. They needed to have a label to hang on any credible person who might dispute the oficial story along the lines of '' he's only one of those silly conspiracy theorists'. This template was more important than you can imagine. We Truthers have been living with it daily for eight years.

I also suspect that they may have actual footage of a plane crashing into the Pentagon- whether real or fake I don't know. I think the idea was to show it at some strategic point and take the wind out of the whole conspiracy theory.

After WTC7 and the Shanksville fiasco they ditched that idea as those conspiracies already had a solid life of their own.

The biggest flaw in that reasoning is WTC 7 really doesn't buy anything for the inside job conspiracy. In fact, it's a urine poor target if you want to sell the Al Qaeda story. Another target in Washington however, does. You suppose Bush wanted to get rid of Congress?

What you're really missing is the fifth aircraft. You've got 5 targets (WTC 1 & 2, Pentagon, Capitol, White House) and only 4 planes.

 

[peteweaver]

The official story of 9/11 is such a tissue of lies

There is no 'official story'.

Putting the explosives and incendiaries in the three buildings was child's play. they simply pumped nanothermite inside the core columns and ignited them by remote. Nobody in the building would hv looked twice at engineers drilling a hole at the top of a column and inserting a tube or the nozzle of a spraygun. A different and explosive type of nanothermite as used higher in the building. Like in the top 13 floors of WTC1 for instance which essentially blew up throwing chunks as large as four tons 600 feet or the length of two football fields

How do the people who couldn't pull off watergate, enter a fully working office building, and rig it for a controlled demolition and pull off something even more difficult ? This isn't a comic book, this is real life, and people working in those buildings would notice if a demolition crew came into their office, and said "excuse us whilst we remove the walls and put all these big sacks of thermite into the columns.

At any rate thermite isn't an explosive, it is a self sustaining exothermic reaction between aluminium oxide and iron, bung it onto a column and it'd fall off. It'd be slightly less idiotic if the twoofers were saying trusses had been cut with it, it'd be physically possible for thermite to burn through a horizontal member despite the impossibility of placing the stuff into the building, but no, they're saying it was used to cut vertical columns, and what a load of tosh that claim is!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Putting the explosives and incendiaries in the three buildings was child's play. they simply pumped nanothermite inside the core columns and ignited them by remote. Nobody in the building would hv looked twice at engineers drilling a hole at the top of a column and inserting a tube or the nozzle of a spraygun. A different and explosive type of nanothermite as used higher in the building. Like in the top 13 floors of WTC1 for instance which essentially blew up throwing chunks as large as four tons 600 feet or the length of two football fields.

This is where your ignorance lets you down. All the core columns above the 89th floor were I-beams, not box columns. There wasn't an inside to the beams in the top 13 floors - or, indeed, the top 20, including the entire collapse initiation zone - to pour thermite into.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

hear that?

clackclackclackclack

No not really.

But I do hear the chirp chirp chirp of the Bill S and co from piling on the "one way crushdown is not possible" mantra.

It is absolutely amazing that after so many months of parroting Heiwa, that with the appearance of the verinage videos that he (Billy boy) and others have disappeared... (not counting Heiwa, he was always just a few beer short of a six pack... I keep expecting him to get banned anyways... I think the verinage videos have pushed him near if not over the edge.)

 

[bill smith]

This is where your ignorance lets you down. All the core columns above the 89th floor were I-beams, not box columns. There wasn't an inside to the beams in the top 13 floors - or, indeed, the top 20, including the entire collapse initiation zone - to pour thermite into.

Dave

Is that so ? Do you have a link ? Regardless, we know that the top of WTC1 essentailly exploded throwing beams and rubble and even core column segments for long distances, so explosives were used there in one way or another.

There can be little doubt that nanothermite was in the ower columns though given the volume of thermite residue found in the dust. This was used to completely melt many of the the core columns allowing the molten steel to flow down down into the basements where it emained slowly cooling for up to three months. Ten to fifteen thousand tons of it I reckon. How else do you think the rubble remained so hot for so long ?

 

[dtugg]

Hey bs. You've got 103 days.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is that so ? Do you have a link ?

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data

Regardless, we know that the top of WTC1 essentailly exploded

No, it didn't. That's just fantasy. Explosions make loud bangs, and there weren't any loud enough at the right time.

There can be little doubt that nanothermite was in the ower columns though given the volume of thermite residue found in the dust.

A few microscopic paint chips were all that was found in the dust. There's no credible evidence of any thermite, particularly given that the one researcher who tried to replicate Harrit et al's results completely failed to do so.

How else do you think the rubble remained so hot for so long ?

As has been pointed out to you so many times that your ignorance can only be wilful, thermite could not possibly have kept the rubble hot for so long.

Dave

 

[Ragnarok]

You do realise that you "OCT'ers" sound just as anally-retentive about this subject as the the "Truthers" are, only they are trying to prevent the possibility of any further conspiracies being successful, and you lot are trying to shoo them away. They are asking for the means to more transparency in govt. and big business actions, and you are defending their position to keep their secrets safe. Just saying, like!

 

[dtugg]

You do realise that you "OCT'ers" sound just as anally-retentive about this subject as the the "Truthers" are, only they are trying to prevent the possibility of any further conspiracies being successful, and you lot are trying to shoo them away. They are asking for the means to more transparency in govt. and big business actions, and you are defending their position to keep their secrets safe. Just saying, like!

Wrong. You fail.

 

[bill smith]

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data



No, it didn't. That's just fantasy. Explosions make loud bangs, and there weren't any loud enough at the right time.





A few microscopic paint chips were all that was found in the dust. There's no credible evidence of any thermite, particularly given that the one researcher who tried to replicate Harrit et al's results completely failed to do so.



As has been pointed out to you so many times that your ignorance can only be wilful, thermite could not possibly have kept the rubble hot for so long.

Dave

I see another one retreating into the lack of apparent explosive detonations. You all seem to be gravitating to that final entrenchement. We will have to see if that bridge cannot be crossed when the time comes.

Paint chips ? Hmmm..

A 15,000 ton well-shielded block of molten steel might well stay hot for that long though Dave . I can think of little else that provides a rational explanation for the massive heat that was melting the workers boots way up on the surface weeks or months after the event.