WTC 7 hit but not adjacent buildings

jaydeehess

Penultimate Amazing
jaydeehess
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
20,849
Location
40 miles north of the border
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9491462&postcount=7
refers to report http://www.wai.com/project.aspx?id=1817
The thread, however, asks to not discuss CT theories so I am creating a separate thread on this specific topic.

Illustrates the debris pattern from WTC 1 & 2 and shows that WTC 7 was square in the path of perimeter sections falling off of WTC1. However, I was asked why it was that WTC 7 suffered so greatly from debris impact and not the Verizon or Post Office.

The study of the debris answers that question and I invite Cts to look it over and state whether or not they believe that question has been answered. (thus perhaps ending one JAQ)
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9491462&postcount=7
refers to report http://www.wai.com/project.aspx?id=1817
The thread, however, asks to not discuss CT theories so I am creating a separate thread on this specific topic.

Illustrates the debris pattern from WTC 1 & 2 and shows that WTC 7 was square in the path of perimeter sections falling off of WTC1. However, I was asked why it was that WTC 7 suffered so greatly from debris impact and not the Verizon or Post Office.

The study of the debris answers that question and I invite Cts to look it over and state whether or not they believe that question has been answered. (thus perhaps ending one JAQ)
Click to expand...

I think there needs to be desperate discussions between direct physical impact to structural stability, and impact initiating fires that leads to heat expansion of structural members.
 
The orgininating post that sparked me to start this thread has been moved to AAH along with several others, including mine, for derailing the thread they were in. The salient part is this
no other building -- neither of WTC 7's structural neighbours -- plummeted to the street from secondary damage from the towers. That kind of information is what gets real skeptics hot and bothered, as they should be.
Click to expand...

Thus I begin with the reason that WTC 7's lateral neighbours did not "plummeted to the street from secondary damage from the towers"
 
1. None of the other buildings had 47 stories of weight resting on it.
2. Other buildings hard partial collapse from fires, such as WTC5. Imagine if THIS had 40 stories of weight above it.
3. None of the other buildings were built as unique as WTC7.

I thought this had already been discussed, or have I missed the point of the thread? :o
 
1) Differences in construction.

2) Differences in height.

3) Differences in damage from collapsing structures.

4) The out of control fire.
 
cjnewson88 said:
1. None of the other buildings had 47 stories of weight resting on it.
2. Other buildings hard partial collapse from fires, such as WTC5. Imagine if THIS had 40 stories of weight above it.
3. None of the other buildings were built as unique as WTC7.

I thought this had already been discussed, or have I missed the point of the thread? :o
Click to expand...

Like every other 9/11 Truth topic, it has been discussed ad nauseam. However, it was all brought up again in the current Richard Gage thread when ergo and several others went on an extended thread derail. Since the focus of ReThink911 is WTC7 (basically a re-branded Building What? campaign), the rehashing is a logical connection, albeit off-topic for the other thread. So those posts were moved to AAH and the discussion was brought back up in this thread.
 
Well, yes, the other WTC structures were discussed. However, ergo brought up, for some reason, that 7WTC neighbors did not collapse, or plummet, in his words. So I thought I might bring up the geometry of the WTC tower debris falls.
 
jaydeehess said:
Well, yes, the other WTC structures were discussed. However, ergo brought up, for some reason, that 7WTC neighbors did not collapse, or plummet, in his words. So I thought I might bring up the geometry of the WTC tower debris falls.
Click to expand...


This is a point I brought up in my talk (discussion of which lead to the derail! Yay me!), when one audience member asked if other buildings had been damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers (since I was focussing on WTC7 at the time).


Truthers like to act like the collapse of WTC7 is some unique outlier, that stands out in contrast to what happened to other buildings in or around the WTC site. But, when you look at the context of the other buildings, what do we see?


  1. WTC3 - Completely destroyed, in seconds, during the collapse of the TT.
  2. WTC7 - Completely destroyed, in hours, due to damage caused by the TT, and fire
  3. WTC 5, 6 - Partially destroyed, in hours, by impact and fire, with local collapses, Demolished later
  4. Deutsche Bank Building - Damaged by TT, did not collapse but was later condemned and demolished
  5. Verizon Building - Damaged by TT, did not collapse, was determined to be repairable


That lists just about all the possibilities you could have as the result of a large-area disaster that affects a significant number of different buildings. Building 7 isn't an outlier, it's just one more data point that we'd expect to see if we stopped to think about it.
 
Horatius said:
This is a point I brought up in my talk (discussion of which lead to the derail! Yay me!), when one audience member asked if other buildings had been damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers (since I was focussing on WTC7 at the time).


Truthers like to act like the collapse of WTC7 is some unique outlier, that stands out in contrast to what happened to other buildings in or around the WTC site. But, when you look at the context of the other buildings, what do we see?


  1. WTC3 - Completely destroyed, in seconds, during the collapse of the TT.
  2. WTC7 - Completely destroyed, in hours, due to damage caused by the TT, and fire
  3. WTC 5, 6 - Partially destroyed, in hours, by impact and fire, with local collapses, Demolished later
  4. Deutsche Bank Building - Damaged by TT, did not collapse but was later condemned and demolished
  5. Verizon Building - Damaged by TT, did not collapse, was determined to be repairable


That lists just about all the possibilities you could have as the result of a large-area disaster that affects a significant number of different buildings. Building 7 isn't an outlier, it's just one more data point that we'd expect to see if we stopped to think about it.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Fiterman Hall (damaged and deemed beyond repair) and St Nicholas Church (destroyed).
 
The salient fact is that while the Verizon Building, the Post Office Building, and 101 Barclay were struck by debris, it was not flaming debris, or it was insufficient to start fires.

WTC 5,6,7, and many vehicles stuck on West Broadway just to the northeast of WTC 7 were set ablaze by flaming debris. (The impact damage alone to WTC 6 was probably sufficient to cause total economic loss, regardless of the fire.)

The fires started in WTC 5,6, and 7 were fought minimally if at all, due to loss of water pressure. They grew into large fires. All three were destroyed. WTC 5 and 6 were low-rises that suffered partial collapses. WTC 7 collapsed completely.

Everyone can agree to this. But do truthers have a point? I'd be especially interested to know how the Vast Conspiracy knew that flaming debris would start fires in WTC 7 and to the West Broadway vehicles, but not to the adjacent Post Office Building and Fiterman Hall, if it mattered. Otherwise, they've got structural damage to WTC 7 but no fires, and a sh*tload of Super-Duper Hushaboom Nanothermite in WTC 7 to account for, or to try and smuggle out past the clean-up crews and on-site investigators.
 
Redwood said:
I'd be especially interested to know how the Vast Conspiracy knew that flaming debris would start fires in WTC 7 and to the West Broadway vehicles, but not to the adjacent Post Office Building and Fiterman Hall, if it mattered. Otherwise, they've got structural damage to WTC 7 but no fires, and a sh*tload of Super-Duper Hushaboom Nanothermite in WTC 7 to account for, or to try and smuggle out past the clean-up crews and on-site investigators.
Click to expand...
Yep.

I've participated in military demolitions which have failed to explode (usually from crossed loops of det cord), resulting in unexploded blocks of C4 being flung clear.

One has to wonder at the (large) percentage chance of some explosives having survived whole or in part from the WTC collapse. Funny how the Illuminati was willing to take that risk.
 
Redwood said:
The salient fact is that while the Verizon Building, the Post Office Building, and 101 Barclay were struck by debris, it was not flaming debris, or it was insufficient to start fires.

WTC 5,6,7, and many vehicles stuck on West Broadway just to the northeast of WTC 7 were set ablaze by flaming debris. (The impact damage alone to WTC 6 was probably sufficient to cause total economic loss, regardless of the fire.)

The fires started in WTC 5,6, and 7 were fought minimally if at all, due to loss of water pressure. They grew into large fires. All three were destroyed. WTC 5 and 6 were low-rises that suffered partial collapses. WTC 7 collapsed completely.

Everyone can agree to this. But do truthers have a point? I'd be especially interested to know how the Vast Conspiracy knew that flaming debris would start fires in WTC 7 and to the West Broadway vehicles, but not to the adjacent Post Office Building and Fiterman Hall, if it mattered. Otherwise, they've got structural damage to WTC 7 but no fires, and a sh*tload of Super-Duper Hushaboom Nanothermite in WTC 7 to account for, or to try and smuggle out past the clean-up crews and on-site investigators.
Click to expand...

Which it had to be the latter, because no evidence of explosives was ever found in the WTC7 dust. The only thing Truthers have is "it looks like CD".
 
thedopefishlives said:
Like every other 9/11 Truth topic, it has been discussed ad nauseam. However, it was all brought up again in the current Richard Gage thread when ergo and several others went on an extended thread derail. Since the focus of ReThink911 is WTC7 (basically a re-branded Building What? campaign), the rehashing is a logical connection, albeit off-topic for the other thread. So those posts were moved to AAH and the discussion was brought back up in this thread.
Click to expand...

The thing I have never heard a truther explain satisfactorily is why they (whoever they were) destroyed Building 7. Why would they destroy a building that hardly anybody ever heard of before 9/11, and why would they do an explosive demolition of that building without crashing a plane into it or providing some other cover story. Truthers seem so enamored of the fact that it looked like (if you don't look too closely) an explosive demolition that they never ask those simple questions. And no, Larry said pull it, or they did it to destroy documents don't answer that question.
 
Redwood said:
Everyone can agree to this. But do truthers have a point? I'd be especially interested to know how the Vast Conspiracy knew that flaming debris would start fires in WTC 7 and to the West Broadway vehicles, but not to the adjacent Post Office Building and Fiterman Hall, if it mattered. Otherwise, they've got structural damage to WTC 7 but no fires, and a sh*tload of Super-Duper Hushaboom Nanothermite in WTC 7 to account for, or to try and smuggle out past the clean-up crews and on-site investigators.
Click to expand...



Yeah, it's interesting, how the Truthers think that Building 7 is their best piece of evidence for an inside job, when in fact, it's one of their worst.

There's no plausible reason this building would have been the target of a terrorist attack, there's no plausible way that the conspirators could predict or control the damage done to building 7, so as to ensure the collapse looked like the result of fire and impact damage, there's no way the conspirators could ensure their planned demolition would work after the building was damaged, and there's no plausible motive for the conspirators to have put this much effort into destroying an obscure building like WTC7 in the first place.

In fact, doing all this actually draws more attention to WTC7 than just leaving it completely alone, or even just letting it burn without any further attempts to influence its fate. So why go through this whole song and dance?

Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind it because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything.
 
Other data points:

WTC 4: Damaged beyond repair. Was observed to be creaking and leaning the next day, prompting fears it would collapse, though it did not. Taken down by dismantling.

One Liberty Plaza (formerly the U.S. Steel Building) superficial damage, quickly repaired.

Milennium Hotel: damaged and repaired.

WFC 1&2, and the Winter Garden: damaged and repaired.

90 West St. (formerly the Lackawanna and Delaware Railroad Building): The most badly damaged building that survived. A classic steel-skeleton skyscraper like the Empire State Building, it suffered extensive fire for days, but was deemed repairable.

Engineers attribute its survival to its compartmentalized structure, plus extensive use of masonry and terra cotta wall paneling, providing excellent fire resistance. IIRC, some structural steel was nonetheless damaged and replaced.
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
Yeah, it's interesting, how the Truthers think that Building 7 is their best piece of evidence for an inside job, when in fact, it's one of their worst.

There's no plausible reason this building would have been the target of a terrorist attack, there's no plausible way that the conspirators could predict or control the damage done to building 7, so as to ensure the collapse looked like the result of fire and impact damage, there's no way the conspirators could ensure their planned demolition would work after the building was damaged, and there's no plausible motive for the conspirators to have put this much effort into destroying an obscure building like WTC7 in the first place.

In fact, doing all this actually draws more attention to WTC7 than just leaving it completely alone, or even just letting it burn without any further attempts to influence its fate. So why go through this whole song and dance?

Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind it because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything.
Click to expand...

When you only got one straw, you grasp it with all your might.
 
Truthers got the idea into their heads that fires can't cause steel structures to fail and collapse. So when they learned of WTC7, they doubled down and irrationally insisted that it too was targeted as part of a secret plan. As others have pointed out, it makes no sense to think of WTC7 as a target but understanding that involves understanding why the towers were made a target, The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks explained: "Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to "wake the American people up." Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wK72Snm6Y

I really thought this video in particular would have helped put an end to the BS about WTC7 because of all the firemen's predictions of its collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw‎


I really think that a way to get them to understand reality is to be honest about the full extent of how ugly the entire situation is. And to come to terms with the idea that the embrace of "9/11 truth" didn't happen in a vacuum. There was a ruthless and dominating agenda to suppress the main motive which I think played a role in the misdirection and obsession about "how" the attacks happened and the preoccupation about buildings that were not important. Case in point is Dan Rather who both suppressed mention of the word "Israel" as he was reading from the Rueters newswire that day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&feature=youtu.be&t=3m25s AND he was oddly fascinated with the collapse of WTC7. I suspect that part of the guilt or uncomfortable position of being a person suppressing the motive led him to find other things that day to shift focus to. So the same man that wouldn't read the word "Israel" is the same guy truthers fall over themselves THANKING because he was so fascinated by WTC7's collapse AND Dan Rather is the first person to misidentify the start of the collapse of WTC7, he introduces the video clip then after the collapse has already started he says "NOW we go to video tape of of the collapse of this building" YET they were already were showing it and had shown the penthouse collapsing first. "Amazing, incredible, pick your word, for the 3rd time today …" Well, if he had spent the time talking about the MOTIVE for the event he was covering maybe he wouldn't have felt so self-conscious and felt he needed to be so amazed by the collapse of a building that just happened to be near the targeted towers.

Andrea Mitchell of NBC is another person who both suppressed the main motive AND shifted the focus to "how" (away from "why") So we can see her report from that day where she too omits mention of Israel as she cites the same Rueters newswire AND even shows the news editor who is quoted in that newswire. Yes the very "Arab journalist with access to him" who is quoted in that newswire who says what bin Laden has said, "Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday." Michell reads for that newswire and even shows a video clip of that very same Arab journalist YET omits mention of Israel. She even plays a clip of him saying "I believe the only thing is to revise their policies, to look at what's happening, WHY for example the anti-American sentiment is very high in the Middle East and the Muslim world" BUT RIGHT AFTER that clip, she says "HOW could this happen"! So she suppressed mention of the main motive WHY (anger at US support of Israel) and the very next thing she asks is "HOW" (and not "WHY" which is exactly what the journalist had just said should be asked seconds before!)

I have watched hours of reporting from that day and days after and it is hard to even find a reporter utter the word "motive." Compare that to all these other events including recent high profile shootings even as recently as the Navy Yard shooting.

What I am saying is the abnormal fixation on HOW by many people must, to some degree, have been influenced by mass media pushing that while at the same time suppressing the more normal and relevant question of WHY.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom