'What about building 7'?

[Miragememories]

Why do you keep posting the same thing in multiple threads?

Oh and the sheer stud nonsense has been debunked, try the search function Einstein.

Replies do not automatically equate to debunks.

That is just wishful thinking.

MM

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

It continues to amaze me that Truthers don't think that the fires and collapse of the Twin Towers had any influence of the destruction of Building 7...

 

[AmandaM]

Because this subject came up at work, I read ahead and read all 20-something pages here. Still, I am not quite sure I understand. This entire thread seems to be about whether or not building 7 was destroyed as a result of the circumstances of the destruction of the 2 towers (sort of collateral damage, I guess), or by controlled demolition. Correct?

The official explanation is questioned by some, and an alternative suggestion is proposed: that the building came down as a result of deliberate placed explosives, correct?

If this is correct then, who placed them and why?


Here's what I think I have gathered:

Who is responsible for placing the explosive devices? I see 3 options, so far.

1. Terrorists.
2. Lone bomber or small group of bombers (small conspiracy)
3. A government agency (large conspiracy)

Starting with option 1, terrorists, makes a certain amount of sense, I guess. They tried it once before, and they are (arguably, I take it) responsible for the plane crashes. It does make one wonder why they had such an elaborate plan for multiple plane crashes and yet only one building was wired to explode. You can't really second-guess crazy, but it seems a little out of "character" with the rest of the plot. I mean, it just seems like kind of an afterthought to blow up a smallish building with not much symbolism attached to it. But I'll admit that it's in the realm of possibility, if we're going to throw out all of the results of the investigation that provided the "official" explanation.

2. Lone bomber(s) theory is just as odd. What purpose would they have for blowing it up? Again, I understand you can't hold crazy people to logical rules, but did anyone threaten to bomb that building? Did they leave a note? Was there any motivation to destroy that building? Anybody famous working there?

(Not to be flippant about such a tragedy, but if we assume it WAS a lone bomber or small group, imagine how defeated they must feel, having their great statement lost in the fires, and having most of the world say "What was building 7?")

3. Government/FBI/CIA/NSA or whatever conspiracy. I guess this is the most popular suspect? And almost categorically tied to the "9/11 inside job" theory, yes?

So which branch of government? Was Congress in on it? The Supreme Court? How about the House? Pentagon? Just Bush? The Navy Seals? The FBI but not the CIA? CIA but not the NSA? FEMA and a few Army guys? "Government" might as well be translated as "people." Which specific people are responsible?

And why? What was so special about this building that required explosives? What were they trying to accomplish? Destruction of evidence? I saw that movie, and they really only needed to take out 1 or 2 floors to destroy the alien corpse/UFO wreckage/virus/mutant honeybee/car that runs on water/cure for cancer or whatever. Why the whole building? Alternatively, why not more buildings? Or is the argument that ALL of the destroyed buildings on 9/11 were due to controlled explosive devices?


Conspiracy theories are interesting, and I don't always just discount them out of hand, (9/11 after all WAS a conspiracy, no matter what group effected it) but they're too often like some kind of angry Rube Goldberg contraption, determined to take the longest and most convoluted path from A to B as possible.

The "official explanation" is an elegant and relatively simple solution to the question of why the building fell. I haven't really read anything here yet that makes me doubt it, yet I've read way too many things that make me doubt the alternative explanations, as I understand them. I'm trying to be open-minded, but I just don't think the alternative position (that the official explanation is wrong) has made a logical and believable case. Still, it was an interesting read, so thank you for that

 

[Miragememories]

Because this subject came up at work, I read ahead and read all 20-something pages here. Still, I am not quite sure I understand. This entire thread seems to be about whether or not building 7 was destroyed as a result of the circumstances of the destruction of the 2 towers (sort of collateral damage, I guess), or by controlled demolition. Correct?

The official explanation is questioned by some, and an alternative suggestion is proposed: that the building came down as a result of deliberate placed explosives, correct?

If this is correct then, who placed them and why?


Here's what I think I have gathered:

Who is responsible for placing the explosive devices? I see 3 options, so far.

1. Terrorists.
2. Lone bomber or small group of bombers (small conspiracy)
3. A government agency (large conspiracy)

Starting with option 1, terrorists, makes a certain amount of sense, I guess. They tried it once before, and they are (arguably, I take it) responsible for the plane crashes. It does make one wonder why they had such an elaborate plan for multiple plane crashes and yet only one building was wired to explode. You can't really second-guess crazy, but it seems a little out of "character" with the rest of the plot. I mean, it just seems like kind of an afterthought to blow up a smallish building with not much symbolism attached to it. But I'll admit that it's in the realm of possibility, if we're going to throw out all of the results of the investigation that provided the "official" explanation.

2. Lone bomber(s) theory is just as odd. What purpose would they have for blowing it up? Again, I understand you can't hold crazy people to logical rules, but did anyone threaten to bomb that building? Did they leave a note? Was there any motivation to destroy that building? Anybody famous working there?

(Not to be flippant about such a tragedy, but if we assume it WAS a lone bomber or small group, imagine how defeated they must feel, having their great statement lost in the fires, and having most of the world say "What was building 7?")

3. Government/FBI/CIA/NSA or whatever conspiracy. I guess this is the most popular suspect? And almost categorically tied to the "9/11 inside job" theory, yes?

So which branch of government? Was Congress in on it? The Supreme Court? How about the House? Pentagon? Just Bush? The Navy Seals? The FBI but not the CIA? CIA but not the NSA? FEMA and a few Army guys? "Government" might as well be translated as "people." Which specific people are responsible?

And why? What was so special about this building that required explosives? What were they trying to accomplish? Destruction of evidence? I saw that movie, and they really only needed to take out 1 or 2 floors to destroy the alien corpse/UFO wreckage/virus/mutant honeybee/car that runs on water/cure for cancer or whatever. Why the whole building? Alternatively, why not more buildings? Or is the argument that ALL of the destroyed buildings on 9/11 were due to controlled explosive devices?


Conspiracy theories are interesting, and I don't always just discount them out of hand, (9/11 after all WAS a conspiracy, no matter what group effected it) but they're too often like some kind of angry Rube Goldberg contraption, determined to take the longest and most convoluted path from A to B as possible.

The "official explanation" is an elegant and relatively simple solution to the question of why the building fell. I haven't really read anything here yet that makes me doubt it, yet I've read way too many things that make me doubt the alternative explanations, as I understand them. I'm trying to be open-minded, but I just don't think the alternative position (that the official explanation is wrong) has made a logical and believable case. Still, it was an interesting read, so thank you for that

Well Amanda, I suggest you stay leaning to a belief that all is right in the world of the Official Conspiracy Theory believers.

It sounds like the harsh reality of 9/11 Truth would be more than your 'cup of tea'.

On the other hand, if you are interested in more balance, you might want to do some research at the Loose Change Forum or any of the many other 9/11 Truth sites.

You will read a certain amount of bs where ever you go so you need a good filter.

Unfortunately, this forum will clog even the best of filters.

MM

 

[Sabretooth]

On the other hand, if you are interested in more balance, you might want to do some research at the Loose Change Forum or any of the many other 9/11 Truth sites.

LCF is balanced?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[AmandaM]

On the other hand, if you are interested in more balance, you might want to do some research at the Loose Change Forum or any of the many other 9/11 Truth sites.

What would be said there that hasn't already been said here?

There have been 30 pages of posts and yet still no convincing argument. I doubt that 30 more pages on another forum would provide one. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, really. If I understand correctly, the alternative theory states that controlled demolitions were used. Okay -- by whom and for what ultimate purpose? All I'm asking for is alternative theory to the "official" one.

The "harsh reality of 9/11 truth" isn't something I'm avoiding. I'm capable of imagining that it might have been an "inside job." But this thread is about building 7, and controlled demolitions. Specific questions of who and why were asked early on in the thread and not addressed.

Let me ask you this: If I were to accept the position that building 7 WAS brought down by controlled demolitions, would that actually move the argument forward enough to answer the specific questions of who and why?

 

[alienentity]

Because this subject came up at work, I read ahead and read all 20-something pages here. Still, I am not quite sure I understand. This entire thread seems to be about whether or not building 7 was destroyed as a result of the circumstances of the destruction of the 2 towers (sort of collateral damage, I guess), or by controlled demolition. Correct?

<snip>

The "official explanation" is an elegant and relatively simple solution to the question of why the building fell. I haven't really read anything here yet that makes me doubt it, yet I've read way too many things that make me doubt the alternative explanations, as I understand them. I'm trying to be open-minded, but I just don't think the alternative position (that the official explanation is wrong) has made a logical and believable case. Still, it was an interesting read, so thank you for that

I think you have grasped the subject well. I think one fundamental mistake the 'Truther' side is making is to lump all facts, scientific inquiries, etc.. into a mythical entity called 'The Official Story' or 'Official Conspiracy Theory'.

That implies (incorrectly) that the whole body of literature and evidence has acquired some kind of Gatekeeper-esque stamp of approval before it has been published and disseminated.

The logical fallacy continues when you are asked to question the 'Official Story', meaning everything contained in that body of knowledge, as somehow tainted by 'Them™'

Just judging from the debates on the internet etc, there is hardly one official source of news and information, one POV out there. And just because there is a general consensus on an issue doesn't mean that people are brainwashed - it depends how much information they have, and what the quality is.

Welcome to the forums, anyhow.

Side note: If you do happen to venture over to the Loose Change Forums, and happen to post a thread which questions 9/11 Truth beliefs, your thread will be moved to a special 'Skeptics' area, away from the rest.
This is a rather blatant and discriminatory policy; On top of that, if you read the LCF disclaimers and rules, you'll discover that you can be banned for even discussing certain topics.

Contrast with the policy here, and you'll see that, while it's true that Truthers will face ridicule and rude behavior here from some (and often these posts are sent to AAH for breach of the MA), nobody is banned for expressing an opinion either way.
There are a few truthers here who continue to express all sorts of wild opinions, yet they have never been banned in years. Others have been banned quickly for repeated breaches of the MA.

 

[Dog Town]

Let me ask you this: If I were to accept the position that building 7 WAS brought down by controlled demolitions, would that actually move the argument forward enough to answer the specific questions of who and why?

If only...

 

[Thunder]

Well Amanda, I suggest you stay leaning to a belief that all is right in the world of the Official Conspiracy Theory believers.

evil Islamic extremists, constantly plotting to kill Americans.

yeah, all is right in the world.

 

[LashL]

Several off-topic posts that were part of a lengthy derail have been moved to AAH. The subject of this thread is 7WTC, not the design of 1WTC and 2WTC, not whether the design of 1WTC and 2WTC incorporated various scenarios regarding airplanes at various speeds, etc., and not whether 1&2WTC 'should' have collapsed or not, etc.

Some of the posts that were split with the derail had good information in them and would be perfectly fine if they were posted in a thread about those other subjects, but alas they were off-topic in this thread. If you wish to discuss those other subjects, feel free to resurrect any of your otherwise non-breaching posts in an appropriate thread on those topics.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Miragememories]

Off Topic Posts

I thought the subject of this thread was "What about building 7?"

Everyone appears to be ignoring the warning from LashL.

I am quite interested in discussing the thread topic even if the majority
of the rest of you show no interest.

For example, I would like to know how it was possible for WTC7 to
maintain such a symmetrical-looking collapse and have 8 storeys of free fall
without simultaneous removal of the majority of its core columns?

MM

 

[excaza]

For example, I would like to know how it was possible for WTC7 to
maintain such a symmetrical-looking collapse and have 8 storeys of free fall
without simultaneous removal of the majority of its core columns?

Must have been aliens.

Not to mention the free fall wasn't at the beginning of the collapse, so for your CD delusion to work, they would have had to detonate a bunch of explosives with perfect timing as the building was already falling.

Without, of course, leaving any residue, unspent explosives, wiring, or making noise.

So, aliens.

 

[Disbelief]

I thought the subject of this thread was "What about building 7?"

Everyone appears to be ignoring the warning from LashL.

I am quite interested in discussing the thread topic even if the majority
of the rest of you show no interest.

For example, I would like to know how it was possible for WTC7 to
maintain such a symmetrical-looking collapse and have 8 storeys of free fall
without simultaneous removal of the majority of its core columns?

MM

Maybe you can explain what you meant by this:

And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Maybe you can explain what you meant by this:

That he's been making an argument about a building for several years without even knowing about the building he was referring to?

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Must have been aliens.

Not to mention the free fall wasn't at the beginning of the collapse, so for your CD delusion to work, they would have had to detonate a bunch of explosives with perfect timing as the building was already falling.

Without, of course, leaving any residue, unspent explosives, wiring, or making noise.

So, aliens.

No residue? Really?.........what about the sulfidation on the steel.....that was reduced to paper thin from 1 inch thick, curled like a paper scroll, with GAPING holes in it!!!! This is all documented by FEMA, who told NIST to investigate further, which they never did.

Fraudulents anyone? NFPA Guidlines anyone?

 

[Sabretooth]

No residue? Really?.........what about the sulfidation on the steel.....that was reduced to paper thin from 1 inch thick, curled like a paper scroll, with GAPING holes in it!!!! This is all documented by FEMA, who told NIST to investigate further, which they never did.

Fraudulents anyone? NFPA Guidlines anyone?

Links and evidence, please.

The sulfidation, IIRC, was nothing more than burnt paint.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Links and evidence, please.

The sulfidation, IIRC, was nothing more than burnt paint.

Look in appendix C of the FEMA report, I'm not giving you anything.
I assure you it's there.

 

[Sabretooth]

Look in appendix C of the FEMA report, I'm not giving you anything.
I assure you it's there.

What FEMA report?

 

[excaza]

Look in appendix C of the FEMA report, I'm not giving you anything.
I assure you it's there.

Ignoring the fact that it was investigated, what explosive would do this?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

No residue? Really?.........what about the sulfidation on the steel.....that was reduced to paper thin from 1 inch thick, curled like a paper scroll, with GAPING holes in it!!!! This is all documented by FEMA, who told NIST to investigate further, which they never did.

Fraudulents anyone? NFPA Guidlines anyone?

Mother of God...

First of all, NIST did address the sulfidation attacks. See NCSTAR 1-3C.

Second, the erosion was determined to be expected in the fires. See Worcester Polytechnic group, including Biederman, Barnett, Sisson, et. al. There are multiple studies explaining the sulfidation erosion; there is nothing suspicious about it at all.