• 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

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..... snip
Click to expand...
The subject at hand is: why, how, when 7 was rigged, and if 3, 4, 5, and 6 were part of the game.

Why, how, when?
 
Reality Believer said:
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!
Click to expand...

Crazy like a Murdoch Fox? :p I haven't heard anything about insurance companies screaming fraud...except from twoofers.

Of course twoofers could never be accused of using logic in their arguments.
:rolleyes:
 
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...

Max, we don't believe all truthers are in their mom's basement. Some are in their fathers basement or in their very own.
 
MIKILLINI said:
Crazy like a Murdoch Fox? :p I haven't heard anything about insurance companies screaming fraud...except from twoofers.

Of course twoofers could never be accused of using logic in their arguments.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Insurance co.'s were in on it too, geeez.

With having to pay out billions they get to raise rates for home insurance to more than cover the pay out. Now the banks got peckish about the insurance co.'s making so much money so they foreclosed on a lot of mortages thus making sure fewer home insurance policies remain active and thus making sure that the insurance co.'s don't get too rich.

See the system works.....
 
jaydeehess said:
Insurance co.'s were in on it too, geeez.

With having to pay out billions they get to raise rates for home insurance to more than cover the pay out. Now the banks got peckish about the insurance co.'s making so much money so they foreclosed on a lot of mortages thus making sure fewer home insurance policies remain active and thus making sure that the insurance co.'s don't get too rich.

See the system works.....
Click to expand...

It does...Now the government is stepping in to ease the foreclosure debacle. That would presumably make the inside job totally complete. The NWO has infiltrated every facet of American life...We are toast!! 11!Eleventy!11!!
 
jaydeehess said:
Insurance co.'s were in on it too, geeez.

With having to pay out billions they get to raise rates for home insurance to more than cover the pay out. Now the banks got peckish about the insurance co.'s making so much money so they foreclosed on a lot of mortages thus making sure fewer home insurance policies remain active and thus making sure that the insurance co.'s don't get too rich.

See the system works.....
Click to expand...
Yes! Why make trillions when we could make billions!
 
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.

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 )
Click to expand...

If a frog had wings it would still not fly. Just look stupid
 
Gravy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fire rated det cord only comes from the NWO. It's our signature. Nobody expects fire rated det cord.
 
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...

If Scheurman's report is correct, then you may be able to draw that conclusion. However, it's worth considering that the starting point for this demolition was not a building in pristine condition, but one with one corner seriously damaged and the south wall virtually cut in half. You're then assuming, though, that this failure mode was understood and predicted before the fact, rather than inferred from study of an actual failure after the fact. Can you see that this is at best a rather more worrying point for the conspiracy theorist?

Let's suppose that you're a conspirator and, for some reason, it's so important to the success of your plan that WTC7 must be demolished. You need a plan for demolishing it, so you turn to your demolition guys. The plan they give you is this:

"Normally a demolition like this would require pre-weakening of the building and then the simultaneous destruction of the majority of the support columns, and even when it's done like that it occasionally doesn't work. However, we've done a structural analysis of this particular building and found that if we take out one single column, there will be an upward progression of failure to the roof, which will cause the mechanical penthouse to fall into the building, resulting in a horizontal failure progression that will take down the remainder of the building. Nobody's ever tried anything remotely like this before, but in theory it should work."

Even if you're certain that debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers will be seen to hit WTC7 and will cause enough damage to make it look like the building is in danger of collapse, does this look like a plan you'd stake your life on?

Dave
 
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...

Completely untrue, and is partly the reason you have been asked to reconsider what you post. As explained elsewhere, if you have issues over moderator actions then discuss them in the Forum Mgt section NOT in these threads.

Apart from anything else, I fail to see what relevance your theory about the Towers has to the fall of WTC7. Stop derailing, and stop complaining about mod actions in the wrong forum sections.
 
Reality Believer said:
Yes! Why make trillions when we could make billions!
]
Click to expand...

That's why the NWO created professional sports teams. It is an enticement for uppity billionaires to stroke their egos and buy a basketball or hockey franchise thus turning them into mere multi-millionaires in a few years, at which time they stop trying to get into the NWO clubs at the center of the Earth and that really chic one on Mars and shaped like a face .
 
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.


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.


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...


How are you coming along on your imaginary conspiracy's motive for blowing up WTC 7? Still can't begin to come up with a remotely-plausible rationale? Well, neither can anybody else.
 
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.
Click to expand...



That would be good news indeed if it were true, however, you're just lying as usual.


Max Photon said:
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...


Sad. The first correct statement you've made and you imagine you're being funny.
 
pomeroo said:
How are you coming along on your imaginary conspiracy's motive for blowing up WTC 7? Still can't begin to come up with a remotely-plausible rationale? Well, neither can anybody else.
Click to expand...

Yup. The two questions it all goes quiet on are:

1. What possible motive was there for blowing up WTC7?

2. If it was wired for demolition beforehand then why did they leave it so very late on in the day to actually blow it up?

And as a footnote to 2, why leave it so late so the building was crawling with firefighters at one point or another and they might've discovered said demolition charges?
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
A very little amount...but big enough to destroy huge columns...and tough enough to withstand the massive fires that are raging against those same columns...so they can be detonated...completely silently...seven hours after the building was damaged and on fire and creaking and groaning and leaning and apparent to all the experts that it was going to collapse...and the explosives were placed completely inconspicuously...with some sort of damage-proof and fireproof timer...by invisible conspirators...all cleverly designed to look like a "natural" collapse...although they couldn't have known the building would be on fire...and all for no conceivable reason.

Well, you sold me, einsteen! Teh WTC 7 wuz a inside job!
Click to expand...

You wanted me to answer this one I guess, I’m not in the mood but ok here we go

The report says (at JREF I don't have to ask "correct me if I'm wrong")

1) Assume an insufficient amount of fireproofing
2) Fire at the 7th and 12th floor
3) Fire dropped to the 11th floor
4) Long span steel beams on the 13th floor could have expanded and bowed, sagged or buckled downward (could also be another floor) leading to a chain reaction
5) 1, 2 or more key columns at the east side failed
6) Failure travels vertically to the roof, collapsing all floors (??)
7) Initial kink
8) Horizontal collapse progression to the rectangular core

He also says that 3 hours after 12th floor had burned out the building imploded, therefore it was a slow process.

mr Scheuerman's paper gives a possible explanation, since it isn't assumed that explosives/thermite/whatever was used and the building was also not weakened in advance one needs to work towards an answer. And if you are creative even you could
do that Gravy. In the paper we read things like

- could have expanded/bowed/sagged/buckled
- possibly twisted
- fire might have
- it is unknown whether
- would have
- mechanism could have
- etc

and it is very clear why he says it in this way, because he is not sure of course, this is far from a proof in the strict scientific sense, but this is also no final report of course. Everything is still open, let that be clear!

In the paper it looks like those pull-in forces are highly relevant in the collapse initiation hypothesis. I'm no engineer and I possibly don't understand those pull-in forces, but I know enough about fundamental principles to wonder why on the one hand the connections are the weakest points but on the other hand these are responsible for
the huge pull-in forces, it reminds be a little bit of a picture that I once found at physorg, seems to be from an old official report (possibly nova ?)

xx9qd.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/xx9qd.jpg

Then now imagine that such a process travels horizontally through all the columns, it sounds utter ridiculous to me, if they can show something like this (I hope they will do)

http://www.extremeloading.com/Blast_Engineering.asp?show=Progressive&type=common
http://www.extremeloading.com/ELS_suite.asp?show=Blast&type=common

then I say "hear hear". The fact that wtc7 felt while keeping most of its shape proves that the columns really failed simultaneously in a very early stage; the progressive collapse would have traveled to all columns in the lower structure. Even in a couple of CD videos you see that the collapse is not as clear as wtc7s one because the building first caves down at the places where columns are blown away.

Also he says that from the NIST studies a progressive collapse is initiated after the failure of one key column on any of the lower floor areas. This is very important because it forms the basis of the hypothesis, that would be column 79,80 or 81

But Scheuerman says "they were massive columns and most probably adequately fireproofed and would not have failed directly from heat"! And he of course says that fire is never able to weaken such a column directly and that is also not the whole idea of the paper. It is better to see it as a kind of effect caused by asymmetric thermal expansions, like bi-metals, how this can trigger a failure of all columns is a mystery.

But my whole point was that if the findings are correct you only have to blow up a key column. No, I was not thinking about a bomb that was fully involved in flames. However, a device that destroys a key column would not be impossible. You could give the building a helping hand. This is of course under the assumption that the initiating key column theory is correct.

Ps. The motive is a completely different story that can be separated from the technical aspects. I'm not interested in pointless discussions about paper shredders.
 
Dave Rogers said:
If Scheurman's report is correct, then you may be able to draw that conclusion. However, it's worth considering that the starting point for this demolition was not a building in pristine condition, but one with one corner seriously damaged and the south wall virtually cut in half. You're then assuming, though, that this failure mode was understood and predicted before the fact, rather than inferred from study of an actual failure after the fact. Can you see that this is at best a rather more worrying point for the conspiracy theorist?

Let's suppose that you're a conspirator and, for some reason, it's so important to the success of your plan that WTC7 must be demolished. You need a plan for demolishing it, so you turn to your demolition guys. The plan they give you is this:

"Normally a demolition like this would require pre-weakening of the building and then the simultaneous destruction of the majority of the support columns, and even when it's done like that it occasionally doesn't work. However, we've done a structural analysis of this particular building and found that if we take out one single column, there will be an upward progression of failure to the roof, which will cause the mechanical penthouse to fall into the building, resulting in a horizontal failure progression that will take down the remainder of the building. Nobody's ever tried anything remotely like this before, but in theory it should work."

Even if you're certain that debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers will be seen to hit WTC7 and will cause enough damage to make it look like the building is in danger of collapse, does this look like a plan you'd stake your life on?

Dave
Click to expand...
Dave, good points (as always) but what kind of afterwards study is it ? Since we saw it collapsing we have to assume it happened in that way?
A theory is as good as its assumptions. I’m sure if they wanted it to destroy they could do it, even with fire on higher levels and impact damage is to be expected when a 416 meter tower collapses from the top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom