• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Confusing New Woo Tactic on WTC7

You know, the funny thing is that I have partial agreement with Einstein. If you wanted to use explosives to collapse the towers, then you might be able to get away with only a few hundred pounds in the right places.

The fact that this intellectual musing has nothing to do with what actually happened on 9/11 doesn't destroy it's hypothetical validity. It just means that in an alternate reality, if 9/11 didn't happen, if jets didn't hit the towers and therefore there were no fires to destroy explosives, plus no witnesses to hear the detonations, plus time to actually dismantle the interior structures in order to actually get at the columns in question, then yes, only a few explosives properly place might indeed be sufficient.

See? It's possible for everyone to get along. ;)

(PS, If I had a million dollars, I'd be a millionaire! You can play too!!! :D )
 
ElMondoHummus said:
You know, the funny thing is that I have partial agreement with Einstein. If you wanted to use explosives to collapse the towers, then you might be able to get away with only a few hundred pounds in the right places.
Click to expand...
Absolutely – or less – if just putting explosives on theoretical columns, as a paper exercise, is all we're talking about. But it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Egad, the circular logic and contradictions of truthers are making me sick. This debunking business is becoming less like CSI, and more like Dirty Jobs. Now excuse me while I wade through another pile of poo. :mgbanghead
 
Gravy, didn't one of the fire chiefs say something about 7 have what they'd consider a 5 alarm fire on at least 6 floors?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Gravy, didn't one of the fire chiefs say something about 7 have what they'd consider a 5 alarm fire on at least 6 floors?
Click to expand...
I don't recall that, but I'd certainly like to add it to the collection if true.
 
This is OT....but I would love to get of the reactions of you JREF New Yorkers to Cloverfield..since that film has several 9/11 visual references.
I have got a feeling the Truthers will go beserk over this film.
 
Obviously truthers have never held a job in a large building that housed large financial companies like Solomon Brothers that are open 24/7. They must think that life imitates Tom Cruise in "Mission Impossible."
Click to expand...

Worked with several people who worked for Salomon at WTC 7 - told me about having
to evacuate building that day and walk for miles uptown in order to get home.
 
I know this will end up badly, but if 7 was pre-wired weeks in advance, then were 3, 4, 5, and 6 wired as well? Was there a contingency for all buildings in the vicinity that if they were not flattened by the towers, then each one could be "pulled" as needed?

Can someone from the truth movement comment?
 
Reality Believer said:
I know this will end up badly, but if 7 was pre-wired weeks in advance, then were 3, 4, 5, and 6 wired as well? Was there a contingency for all buildings in the vicinity that if they were not flattened by the towers, then each one could be "pulled" as needed?

Can someone from the truth movement comment?
Click to expand...
Remember, it would have to be wired for huge fires also. You can't just blow up a building that isn't damaged or burning and expect to get away with it. Oh, that's right, WTC 7, was a malfunction. It was supposed to collapse in the manner of a controlled demolition when the towers, which were wired with explosives to not look like a controlled demolition, collapsed. But wait: if it was a malfunction, why did it collapse seven hours later? How did the already malfunctioning explosives survive the huge fires and then silently detonate? I forget. Where's the playbook? I'm tellin' ya: things ain't what they used to be in the NWO Department of Redundancy Department.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so If I follow, seven (7) buildings were wired clandestinely, with explosives that don't exist, detonated by methods that don't exist, by an organization that doesn't exist.

Got it! :boggled:. These guys are GOOD!

Never before in the history of ........
 
Last edited:
Reality Believer said:
...but if 7 was pre-wired weeks in advance, then were 3, 4, 5, and 6 wired as well?
Click to expand...


Of course not. There weren't any documents that needed to be destroyed in those buildings. That was the entire reason for bringing down #7--to destroy documents. D'uh. Get with the program.

Steve S.
 
Reality Believer said:
I know this will end up badly, but if 7 was pre-wired weeks in advance, then were 3, 4, 5, and 6 wired as well? Was there a contingency for all buildings in the vicinity that if they were not flattened by the towers, then each one could be "pulled" as needed?

Can someone from the truth movement comment?
Click to expand...



A few people have alluded to the same idea, and it's one I wrote a post on a long time ago - that you can't be a little bit MIHOP. For your pre-wired WTC7 (or 6, or whatever one you want to discuss) demolition to look anywhere believable as a "natural" event, it has to have suffered some sort of damage. Otherwise, no one in their right mind would accept it just falling down. So we absolutely, with no ifs ands or buts, need it to be damaged.

To get that damage, we absolutely need one of the towers to fall on it. Where else can we get the damage from? So we need at least one of the towers to fall. Of course, we can't simply rely on the plane to do the job; one might miss, or just barely hit, or might even be re-taken by the passengers, or crashed prematurely like flight 93. So to be absolutely sure that the towers fall, we have to wire them too, and we have to make absolutely sure that the planes hit the towers, and hit them squarely enough that the collapses again look "natural". So now we're into full on woo territory, with some invisible hand wiring all the buildings, while also guiding the planes to their impact, all to make it possible to hide the demo of WTC7. Lose any one element of the plan, and the whole house of cards falls, and everyone watching goes, "WTF?!? Why did that just happen?", and you lose everything you worked so hard for.

You can't be a little bit MIHOP. It's all or nothing.
 
einsteen said:
If you read Scheuerman's report you can conclude that you only need to cut a few key columns in order to initiate a progressive collapse. If that is true the implication is that you need only a very little amount.
Click to expand...

Now here's the thing. If all that is needed is for a few key columns to lose their structural integrity for the collapse to occur as seen AND those are the same columns that would have been in close proximity to the fires on floors 8,10,11 and 12, AND then state that it was not the obvious fires and previous impact damage that caused the building to collapse but rather unseen and unproven pre-planted explosives would be using something much duller than Occam's Razor.

If you read something about controlled demolitions you can learn that the minimum amount that is needed will be used, enough to initiate collapse, but not too much because then the building explodes instead of implodes. But the Scheuerman findings help us out, you don't need much at all. And the fires were localized.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough many of the most ferocious of those fires occured in proximity to the columns in question.


There are testimonies of people who heard it, a British news reporter, Craig Bartmer and I'm sure much more, but it is not my hobby to collect quotes, it is no matter of counting the pro- and anti- testimonies; the fact that there are contradicting testimonies is a fact. It didn't blow the contents all over lower Manhattan because that is the purpose of a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Yeah, AFAIK, one "explosion" was heard, after the east penthouse had started to sink and just prior to the horizontal progression of the collapse. However this was only heard by those close to the building. It is not in evidence in any of the videos taken of the collapse which were all from well back from WTC 7. On the other hand in all videos of real CD's the sharp crack and boom of the cutting charges is always heard. In the case of WTC 7 the columns would not have been pre-weakened as they are in real CD's AND those columns would be larger and heavier than in any real CD of a steel building simply because WTC 7 would be so much larger a building than any real CD of a building AND THEREFORE would require much larger cutting and kicker charges.


,,,,,,,,,,,,, any of this make sense to you ein?
 
Last edited:
Well if destroying the building by controlled demolition was the reason for destroying documents, what was the reason for the fires? Can't fires destroy documents?
Or do truthers believe fires don't do anything? Or do they believe there weren't many fires in WTC 7?
Hey truthers, I'm just askin' questions...
 
Last edited:
MIKILLINI said:
Well if destroying the building by controlled demolition was the reason for destroying documents, what was the reason for the fires? Can't fires destroy documents?
Or do truthers believe fires don't do anything? Or do they believe there weren't many fires in WTC 7?
Hey truthers, I'm just askin' questions...
Click to expand...

Creating a massive, whole floorspace, 20 storey inferno such as was the case in the much smaller Windsor building certainly would have done a better job than creating a jumble of steel and concrete. All that would have been needed would be to 'seed' the floors with highly inflammable material, perhaps even a method by which the deisel fuel stored in the building be used as an acellerant.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,But nooooo, we are told it would be much easier to plant heavy cutter and kicker charges on several columns and much more efficient to destroy damming material by creating a chaotic jumble of broken steel and concrete that will take dozens of people, weeks to remove.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
MIKILLINI said:
Well if destroying the building by controlled demolition was the reason for destroying documents, what was the reason for the fires? Can't fires destroy documents?
Or do truthers believe fires don't do anything? Or do they believe there weren't many fires in WTC 7?
Hey truthers, I'm just askin' questions...
Click to expand...

Whoa, hold on there Chief Smoke. It was insurance fraud! Why would you need to destroy documents when you could collect $7B to rebuild a $15B complex? Crazy? Crazy like a fox!
 
Hey, I'm on your side now!

Hey guys, good news for you.

Believe it or not, now moderators only allow me to post on threads (not started by me) if I agree with you.

Okay, here goes...


Those stupid $#%*& truthers! WTC7 collapsed because of something something not CD-related. Go back to your mom's basement.


Modified Max
 
Max Photon said:
Hey guys, good news for you.

Believe it or not, now moderators only allow me to post on threads (not started by me) if I agree with you.

Okay, here goes...


Those stupid $#%*& truthers! WTC7 collapsed because of something something not CD-related. Go back to your mom's basement.


Modified Max
Click to expand...
Care to point us to the post you misread here? Because I'm pretty sure that's not the real reason. And I'm pretty, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom