To 9/11 TM: WTC7 being a CD is illogical.

[uk_dave]

Did you all miss it?

Well what EXACTLY did bring down wtc-7? What's the official word on it?

Dunno. What's the CT word on it?...

What?
When?
How?
Why?

Fire away

 

[DGM]

Interim? Aren't they sure? How are you? Sure?

Have you read it? I can wait for the final. You do know that NIST was not going to do a report on WTC7? Now the scope of the project has increased (thus the delays).

 

[quicknthedead]

it doesn't make sense to me either, but for a simpler reason.

If they went to the trouble of sending a couple of planes into the other two buildings to 'cover up a CD', then why make the 3rd building collapse 'look like a CD' ?

Yes, alex04, I agree with you completely. This argument is another excellent rationale pointing to the illogic of WTC7 being a CD, so much so it could have its own thread.

I was hoping someone would bring it up here...and you did right off the bat!

NEWS FLASH: "Lead-off batter hits a home run!"

Thanks!

 

[bonavada]

If it takes weeks to set-up something that could have knocked wtc-7 down then how according to the official version did it fall down in one day just like a cd?

That's a hell of a twisted logic stream you have there.
You include the simple term "knocked down" in your reasoning but fail to mention the fires that freely raged for hours in the building. Correct me please if I am wrong but the use of such inferno's is not usually included in the demolition industry.
The demise of WTC7 may have looked somewhat "just like" a controlled demolition but that is it. That is all you have.

Look below, just like a nice cuddly kitty right?

African Wildcat. Say no more.


BV

 

[DC]

Ah, that would be Joerg Schneider. Here is my e-mail exchange with him from December of 2006:

[SIZE=-1]Dear Professor Schneider,[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]You and Professor Bachmann are often cited by conspiracists who contend, against all evidence, that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. As you know, every demolition expert and structural engineer in America rejects this thesis as baseless and insupportable.[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]Matthys Levy, author of the book 'Why Buildings Fall Down,' was shocked to learn that conspiracists were distorting his words to make it appear as though he shared their fantasies. Are you aware of the claims made on your behalf? Do you really endorse a pernicious and unscientific view that ignores mountains of contradictory data?[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]Please be good enough to clarify this matter.[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]Yours Truly,[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]Ronald Wieck[/SIZE]

​

[SIZE=-1]Hello,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I said that Building WTC7 was most probably brought down by controlled demolition. I do not believe that this is a possibility for the two towers. I do neither know Mr. Levy nor his book.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Best regards[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]J. Schneider[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]So, you agree with Prof. Schneider about the Twin Towers? No? You say he doesn't know what he's talking about? Please, tell us more.[/SIZE]


​

Sehr geehrter Herr ................,


Der Artikel im Tagesanzeiger gibt meine
seinerzeitige Aussage korrekt wieder und ich bin
auch heute noch der Ansicht, dass das WTC7 - zum
Voraus professionell vorbereitet - am 11.
September gesprengt wurde.


Mit freundlichem Gruss
J. Schneider

I asked him about WTC7 and he confirmed that in his oppinion WTC7 was brought down by a CD.

i do agree with him about WTC7

 

[scissorhands]

But you dont agree with Joerg about the twin towers?

 

[quicknthedead]

On top of what you have just posted I would like just to add to this comment.

I have always had an issue with "It looks like a CD" because does it really make sense? Sure, I agree it does look like a CD but this in itself is a problem. Say, hypothetically all the conditions you have laid out in your post are met, that the "preps" went to this extraordinary effort to make all this happen,does it really make sense that they would not try and disguise the demolition of WTC 7? Does it really make sense that they would wait for the dust cloud to settle, allow the demolition to be filmed? Allow fire-fighters anywhere near it? Does it really make sense that they would demolish a building in full view of everybody when they had a perfect opportunity to do so when it was obscured?

The point is, if WRC 7 was demolished then it makes no sense that they would have allowed it to look like a CD. It makes far more sense that, if they really wanted to get away with it, they would have disguised it, maybe brought it down immediately after the towers had collapsed, hidden from view.

The fact that it looks like a CD, in my opinion makes it even less likely it was a CD, simply by the fact that had the "perps" had the fore thought to actually fore fill the criteria you have laid down then, as you say, it beggars belief that they would be so sloppy with the demolition of this building when they had plenty of opportunity to destroy it beforehand.

Your thrust "it doesn't make sense to look like a CD" is the same as alex04's previous post, and another home run!

Score: 2-0!

Thanks, stateofgrace!

 

[RAZEtheFLAG]

So what knocked off the fire-proofing in wtc-7? You know the only reason NIST claims the towers could have fell since the fires and structural damage weren't enough to bring down the towers? I'm just trying to get a feel for just how much proof you guys need to accept the official line. So far it doesn't sound like much. In fact the only standard that needs to be met by any of you seems to be just as long as it's not a cd or an inside job it must be true.

 

[A W Smith]

So what knocked off the fire-proofing in wtc-7? You know the only reason NIST claims the towers could have fell since the fires and structural damage weren't enough to bring down the towers? I'm just trying to get a feel for just how much proof you guys need to accept the official line. So far it doesn't sound like much. In fact the only standard that needs to be met by any of you seems to be just as long as it's not a cd or an inside job it must be true.

when it is stated that fire protection has a two or three hour fire rating. what does that mean within the context of a seven hour fire?

 

[bonavada]

I do not believe that this [Controlled Demolition] is a possibility for the two towers.

Is it safe to read that as Schneider stating that CD of the Twin Towers was impossible on that day?
OOPS.

BV

 

[RAZEtheFLAG]

That's a hell of a twisted logic stream you have there.
You include the simple term "knocked down" in your reasoning but fail to mention the fires that freely raged for hours in the building. Correct me please if I am wrong but the use of such inferno's is not usually included in the demolition industry.
The demise of WTC7 may have looked somewhat "just like" a controlled demolition but that is it. That is all you have.

Look below, just like a nice cuddly kitty right?

African Wildcat. Say no more.


BV

Steel structure High-rise buildings have been on fire for much longer and throughout more of a building hundreds if not thousands of times. They have never completely collapsed. You must have something more then that? Is the cat for lack of something else? A fact maybe?

 

[Garb]

Steel structure High-rise buildings have been on fire for much longer and throughout more of a building hundreds if not thousands of times. They have never completely collapsed. You must have something more then that? Is the cat for lack of something else? A fact maybe?

Structural damage?

Windsor tower?

 

[RAZEtheFLAG]

when it is stated that fire protection has a two or three hour fire rating. what does that mean within the context of a seven hour fire?

Buildings never burn for more the a couple of hours in your world? It doesn't mean because it goes past the rating on the fire-proofing the building completely collapses. None of the fires on 9/11 were even throughout most of the buildings. And still where are you getting your final version of EXACTLY what happened to WTC-7 from? Do you even need it or did you already make up your mind? If it's just fire and damage from the falling towers then what's taking NIST so long to put that in a report? Isn't it that simple? So what else can take down a steel structure high-rise according to you without weeks of preparation? Are airplane crashes across the street it?

 

[scissorhands]

Steel structure High-rise buildings have been on fire for much longer and throughout more of a building hundreds if not thousands of times.

I think you had best produce some examples.

 

[AZCat]

Steel structure High-rise buildings have been on fire for much longer and throughout more of a building hundreds if not thousands of times. They have never completely collapsed. You must have something more then that? Is the cat for lack of something else? A fact maybe?

Yes, there has been at least one so-called "global collapse" of a steel high-rise building - the Equitable Life Insurance Building.

 

[RAZEtheFLAG]

What?
When?
How?
Why?

Fire away

Why don't you send that to NIST? Or are others held to a higher standard because they don't share your world view?

 

[DC]

But you dont agree with Joerg about the twin towers?

i dont think so

 

[quicknthedead]

Quickandthedead, many people here have put forward the same arguments, but they have no effect on our resident troofers. Have you tried to put these points at a troof venue? What do Scholars for 9/11 Troof and Justice think? (You are a member, I believe).

Good idea, sleahead.

I think I will post this over at stj911 (and include as well the other rationale just mentioned that "making it look like a CD" also points to the illogic of it being a CD).

I'll have to re-discover the link (twice I have deleted it in the not-so recent past because this forum became boring to me as far as good communication among people).

But I found it once, so I guess I can find it again -- I like detective work.
I just wish I could remember how I found the link before.

Now that you mention it, I wonder how they will answer as this involves simple, yet irrefutable logic.

I will update on how it goes.
Thanks for your suggestion.

 

[bonavada]

Steel structure High-rise buildings have been on fire for much longer and throughout more of a building hundreds if not thousands of times. They have never completely collapsed. You must have something more then that? Is the cat for lack of something else? A fact maybe?

WTC7 was significantly damaged when the towers fell. Fires raged unfought in the building for hours. The building collapsed due to those facts.
You are on a loser.

BV

 

[RAZEtheFLAG]

Yes, there has been at least one so-called "global collapse" of a steel high-rise building - the Equitable Life Insurance Building.

Never heard of it. What century was it built?