The CD of WTC7 - How Was It Done?

Sabretooth

No Ordinary Rabbit
Sabretooth
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
6,757
Location
Wyoming, NY
It’s a question that has been posed a number of times across many, many threads.

If WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7 were brought down by a Controlled Demolition, how was it done?

But has there ever been any legitimate answer from the Truther sect?

Honestly, by this point, 9+ years after the events of 9/11, why hasn’t this been addressed?

So, let’s pose the question once again. For the thread’s sake, let’s just focus on WTC7 and assume that NIST and the NCSTAR1A don’t exist, so it can’t be used “for” or “against” any proposal or rebuttal. Let’s just use the available visual information. I don’t even care if it’s from youtube. I truly want to hear what a Truther has to propose.

The question is simple: How was WTC7 brought down by a CD? What are the logistics of such an operation? The “why it was done” question can wait for another day.

I posted in another thread regarding the fact that Richard Gage has been collecting funds and donations for 4 or 5 years. If I were part of the Truther crowd, I’d be rather upset that nothing beyond “it looks like a CD” has been resolved. AE911T has 1,000+ petition signers that have nothing to say about the logistics of blowing up a building in Manhattan on a busy Tuesday morning? I find this very hard to believe. If there were ever a way to “get the truth” out, showing the world how such a project could be done would surely gain some attention, no?

I think it’s only fair to ask that the bickering be kept to zero. Let’s all try to be civil.

Some points to consider with the OP question as well:

- People involved
- Types of explosives and/or methods of demolition
- When and how they planted and used the devices

So have it. How was WTC7 brought down by a CD?

ETA: I forgot to mention that this goes for both Truthers and Debunkers. If a Debunker has a hypothesis on how the WTC7 was razed by CD, go for it.
 
Last edited:
Some Truthers claim that WTC1 & 2 wasn't brought down by a CD, some said they were. Then they all claim that WTC7 was a CD.

Very contradictory claims there!

If WTC1 & 2 wasn't a CD, then that must mean WTC7 couldn't have been a CD as well. But then they'll whine that witnesses heard explosions & it's evidence of explosives. They have no idea what professions the witnesses have with explosive materials, let alone what caused the explosions. It's amazing how none of the explosions weren't caught on tape if they were indeed explosives.

They then come up with some ingenius idea that the explosives were "silent" & that someone used thermite to bring down the buildings. They have no idea that thermite was used in railroad construction to weld rails together in Britian. When that theory gets trashed they assume that it was thermite that was painted on & caused the steel to "melt".

Of course, according to records given by witnesses of the Hindenberg Disaster, none of the metal skeleton of the airship was melted when it's iron oxide & aluminum powdered (thermite) skin caught fire.

Truthers are very contradictory people. They say 1 thing, then change their minds after facts & evidence is given.

As for WTC7 being a CD? It means Queen Dick (never happened)!
 
Last edited:
The only answer I ever get is "during elevator maintenance". As if that would be the only place someone would need to place explosives. Usually when I press on it turns into a fine dancing display. Apparently during routine elevator maintenance no one would notice pallets of something being brought in the building, sounds of cutting, banging, grinding, or anything else associated with people working with steel.
 
grandmastershek said:
The only answer I ever get is "during elevator maintenance". As if that would be the only place someone would need to place explosives. Usually when I press on it turns into a fine dancing display. Apparently during routine elevator maintenance no one would notice pallets of something being brought in the building, sounds of cutting, banging, grinding, or anything else associated with people working with steel.
Click to expand...

I thought there was no "maintenance" going on in the time frame for 7 WTC to be rigged? This elevator maintenance theory was always around the twin towers wasn't it?
 
Dragon37 said:
I thought there was no "maintenance" going on in the time frame for 7 WTC to be rigged? This elevator maintenance theory was always around the twin towers wasn't it?
Click to expand...

:( ooops. I was just posting in a thread about Jowenko & the towers.

I have a truther level theory. They used a combination of nanothermite and teleportation. Since we know teleportation is possible (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3576594.stm) and the govt has much more advanced technology than we know about the following was done so we can just assume its possible:

A small demolitions team was beamed in to all 3 buildings. People saw flashes of light. They planted the NT bombs in all 3 buildings this way so no one saw them, took very little time, and was done all in that 1/3 day. Figured it out....case solved.
 
grandmastershek said:
:( ooops. I was just posting in a thread about Jowenko & the towers.

I have a truther level theory. They used a combination of nanothermite and teleportation. Since we know teleportation is possible (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3576594.stm) and the govt has much more advanced technology than we know about the following was done so we can just assume its possible:

A small demolitions team was beamed in to all 3 buildings. People saw flashes of light. They planted the NT bombs in all 3 buildings this way so no one saw them, took very little time, and was done all in that 1/3 day. Figured it out....case solved.
Click to expand...

The crew of the Enterprise is gonna hear about this! :D

Capt. Picard gave the order, La Forge beamed into the buildings with kinetic detonators to rig the buildings, Worf stopped anyone coming into the elevators & Data set off the detonators by remote.
 
Truthers believe in CD because of 2 prior beliefs:
  1. The damage by plane impacts, fires, and the impact of WTC1+7 on number 7 didn't suffice to make towers collapse
  2. It looked roughly like a CD

Any truther theory about CD must be measured against these two. Namely, any proposed method must meet the following requirements:
  1. It must do significantly more damage to structural elements than planes and fires
  2. It must adhere to those methods and principles of commercial CDs that make CDs look like CDs.

To satisfy 1., I'd expect that the theory provides at least numbers: Number of severed columns; sum of design loads supported by the severed columns; total cross-sectional area of severed steel members. These numbers would provide them (or us) with a basis for estimating the minimum amount of explosives and/or incendiaries.

To satisfy 2., I'd expect them to first spell out specifically the methods and principles that make CDs look like CDs, as opposoed to those methods also used by demolition pros that do not contribute to that look. I would then expect that these methods appear in their theory.
 
Actually one of the most plausible theories I ever heard about wtc7 was that it was brought down to speed up the clean up.

P'doh had this opinion. The opinion that after the collapses of the towers it was apparent that wtc7 was unstable. His argument (over on the DBS website) was that because it was unstable, it would hinder the rescue operations. So they wired it in a few hours to bring it down into its ownfootprint and it would then speed up the rescue/recovery process.

Now that is pretty bat **** crazy, but it does makes some sense (from the POV) that if the building was brought down empty, it couldn't then topple over and collapse on the rescue operation.

Now that is really the only semi plausible explaination that makes even a lick of sense.

Of course it overlooks all the wonderful and incredibly difficult logistics for how to wire up the building in a few hours, where to place explosives, and again the super duper hush a boom.

My personal theory is just as plausible. Mothra done it. And I have just as much proof as most truthers.
 
We at least have pictures of the culprit engaged in similar behavior:

1253247f52689c8f81.jpg
 
TruthersLie said:
Actually one of the most plausible theories I ever heard about wtc7 was that it was brought down to speed up the clean up.
...
Now that is really the only semi plausible explaination that makes even a lick of sense.
...
Click to expand...

If this was true, there wouldn't be one lick of sense in covering it up. Someone would be very proudly announcing that they did that job so fast and clean, and they'd be very right to announce it loudly and proudly. And no one in the world would object: Not Silverstein, not his insurers, not the government, not the first responders, not no-one.
 
Oystein said:
If this was true, there wouldn't be one lick of sense in covering it up. Someone would be very proudly announcing that they did that job so fast and clean, and they'd be very right to announce it loudly and proudly. And no one in the world would object: Not Silverstein, not his insurers, not the government, not the first responders, not no-one.
Click to expand...

Also considering it would have been the tallest building ever demolished, the successful CD of the WTC7--while it was on fire no less--would be something to brag about by the company that pulled it off.
 
Sabretooth said:
It’s a question that has been posed a number of times across many, many threads.

If WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7 were brought down by a Controlled Demolition, how was it done?

But has there ever been any legitimate answer from the Truther sect?

Honestly, by this point, 9+ years after the events of 9/11, why hasn’t this been addressed?

So, let’s pose the question once again. For the thread’s sake, let’s just focus on WTC7 and assume that NIST and the NCSTAR1A don’t exist, so it can’t be used “for” or “against” any proposal or rebuttal. Let’s just use the available visual information. I don’t even care if it’s from youtube. I truly want to hear what a Truther has to propose.

The question is simple: How was WTC7 brought down by a CD? What are the logistics of such an operation? The “why it was done” question can wait for another day.

I posted in another thread regarding the fact that Richard Gage has been collecting funds and donations for 4 or 5 years. If I were part of the Truther crowd, I’d be rather upset that nothing beyond “it looks like a CD” has been resolved. AE911T has 1,000+ petition signers that have nothing to say about the logistics of blowing up a building in Manhattan on a busy Tuesday morning? I find this very hard to believe. If there were ever a way to “get the truth” out, showing the world how such a project could be done would surely gain some attention, no?

I think it’s only fair to ask that the bickering be kept to zero. Let’s all try to be civil.

Some points to consider with the OP question as well:

- People involved
- Types of explosives and/or methods of demolition
- When and how they planted and used the devices

So have it. How was WTC7 brought down by a CD?

ETA: I forgot to mention that this goes for both Truthers and Debunkers. If a Debunker has a hypothesis on how the WTC7 was razed by CD, go for it.
Click to expand...

Only WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
Ask the Fire Department as to how it was done.
 
TruthersLie said:
Actually one of the most plausible theories I ever heard about wtc7 was that it was brought down to speed up the clean up.

P'doh had this opinion. The opinion that after the collapses of the towers it was apparent that wtc7 was unstable. His argument (over on the DBS website) was that because it was unstable, it would hinder the rescue operations. So they wired it in a few hours to bring it down into its ownfootprint and it would then speed up the rescue/recovery process.

Now that is pretty bat **** crazy, but it does makes some sense (from the POV) that if the building was brought down empty, it couldn't then topple over and collapse on the rescue operation.

Now that is really the only semi plausible explaination that makes even a lick of sense.

Of course it overlooks all the wonderful and incredibly difficult logistics for how to wire up the building in a few hours, where to place explosives, and again the super duper hush a boom.

My personal theory is just as plausible. Mothra done it. And I have just as much proof as most truthers.
Click to expand...

Are you sure P'doh didn’t get that theory from me?

I have always maintained that was the reason WTC 7 was pulled, to enable search and rescue to continue at Ground Zero without the building collapsing onto the emergency personnel.
 
MaGZ said:
Are you sure P'doh didn’t get that theory from me?

I have always maintained that was the reason WTC 7 was pulled, to enable search and rescue to continue at Ground Zero without the building collapsing onto the emergency personnel.
Click to expand...

How was it done?
 
MaGZ said:
Are you sure P'doh didn’t get that theory from me?

I have always maintained that was the reason WTC 7 was pulled, to enable search and rescue to continue at Ground Zero without the building collapsing onto the emergency personnel.
Click to expand...

And it was covered up because......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom