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

[RAZEtheFLAG]

No, I made it all up. I have a tremendous inferiority complex, so I find it necessary to post lies (lies that I sourced, no less. Faking a book written by someone else was pretty difficult, but worth it) on internet forums tricking otherwise honest, diligent researchers into wasting precious time when they could be out on street corners with megaphones and pamphlets further spreading the undeniable truth about tv fakery/space beams/therm*te.</sarcasm>

Ok sorry about your complex but thanks for not wasting my time looking for this book that supposedly has this comparison in it. I didn't think there was one.

 

[RAZEtheFLAG]

I wondered how long it would be until someone brought up Kader.

So was I. Don't forget the overpass in California was it? Now how about something that compares to what is said to have happened on 9/11?

 

[scissorhands]

The more it compares the better. Let's see it.

There arent any other examples of the type of buildings suffering the type of damage that occurred on 9/11 to compare with.
I kind of hoped this would have sunk in by now.
It is your pathetic movement that tries to make comparisons with totally different constructions on fire, and its up to your pathetic movement to explain why.
Find a comparison.

 

[1337m4n]

So was I. Don't forget the overpass in California was it? Now how about something that compares to what is said to have happened on 9/11?

What's wrong with Kader?

Every time it's brought up, we have people like you mocking it like it's a bad example. But not one of you have bothered explaining to us why.

 

[A W Smith]

So was I. Don't forget the overpass in California was it? Now how about something that compares to what is said to have happened on 9/11?

Global collapse?

this was your post. do you remember it?

The global collapse part is the only thing that is not only the first time it's the only time. That's why some claim it still has never happened from just fire and damage.

 

[stateofgrace]

Ok sorry about your complex but thanks for not wasting my time looking for this book that supposedly has this comparison in it. I didn't think there was one.

You clearly don't understand sarcasm, nor do you understand the concept of staying on topic, nor do you understand that this thread is not a platform for you to launch into everything bloody twoofer conspiracy about WTC 7. It is about this OP.

WTC7 is the main reason why people believe 9/11 was an inside job, referring to it as the “smoking gun of 9/11”. They believe it was a controlled demolition because it looked like one (I also thought this).

Nonetheless, there is no hard evidence yet that WTC7 was a CD. There is only the fact that it looked like one (plus added speculation to help bolster this viewpoint). Yes, I still contend WTC7 looked like a CD…but does this mean it really was one?

The answer is no because logically it could not have been. Here's why.

#1. If WTC7 was a CD, it had to have been setup well beforehand, since a CD takes a minimum of weeks to prepare.

Interestingly, CD expert Danny Jowenko stated it might have been possible for a team of experts to have quickly prepped the building for CD the day of 9/11. Yet when he was then told that WTC7 had been on fire all that day, he went silent in bewilderment, for he then believed the building could not have been setup that day, realizing it had to be a CD setup beforehand (and all the implications that thought entailed). All the same, Danny Jowenko based his thinking on the fact that it looked like a CD, which it did. But just because it looked like one does not mean it was, and with that said, there are other CD experts who do not believe it was.

#2. If WTC7 was a CD, then supposedly unknown criminals planned and executed it “stealthily” under/inside the “cover story” of 9/11.

I.e., they planned to couch it inside the events of 9/11, which means our hypothetical perpetrators had to have known ahead of time that:

…….(a) airplanes crashing into the towers would cause them later to collapse, and thereby

…….(b) damage WTC7 sufficiently so it too would collapse and look as if it was a result of fire and debris damage (and not to be considered a CD, which our hypothetical perpetrators planned ahead of time to carry out with cunning deception).

So, if WTC7 was a CD, both #1 and #2 must be true and dependent upon (a) and (b).

However, how could anyone know for sure in advance that crashing airplanes into the towers would result in…….

…….#3 the towers being damaged so severely (by fire and structural failure) that they would collapse so that…….

…….#4 WTC7 would also be so severely damaged by debris from the fallen towers so as to result in its later collapse (by fire and structural failure)?

For the above to be true, our hypothetical perpetrators would had to have known the future in advance detail, which is not possible.

In addition, to argue our perps could have known ahead of time because they were "manipulating" Al Qaeda in some way {LIHOP and/or "privy to their plans"} is also untenable because this too is dependent upon knowing for sure that #3, collapse of the towers, would occur and also cause sufficient damage to WTC7 to provide the plausible explanation needed for #4. This is at the heart of why it could not be a CD.

For it to have been controlled demolition means our hypothetical perpetrators would have known their plan was dependent upon #3 and #4 taking place, but these were not givens. One might argue they could have ensured #3 happening (i.e., destroy the towers by CD “also”), but no one could possibly have known the extent of #4 (ensuing damage to WTC7 from the collapsing towers) that would be needed to take place sufficiently for their “cover story”. Therefore, "they" would have known "their plan" was severely flawed from the beginning and would not have carried it out; thus "their plan" would have become "non-existent", and this is why "they are non-existent".

There is no crystal ball, and there was no supposed plan to bring WTC7 down by CD. To think otherwise beggars the imagination, and the plausibility of WTC7 being a CD makes no sense logically.

Think about it.
Your thoughts are welcome.

Get on topic, start a new thread or I will report you for derailing this thread.

 

[AZCat]

So was I. Don't forget the overpass in California was it? Now how about something that compares to what is said to have happened on 9/11?

I guess I need to clarify: I am not claiming that there is any comparison between any of these events and the collapses of September 11th. Instead, I was correcting the error in your post #51 of this thread.

The "truth movement" seems to think that previous high-rise steel building collapses (or the alleged absence of them) have some relevance to the September 11th collapses, yet have failed to provide any explanation why they are relevant. Perhaps if you took a moment and explained what you were trying to prove we might get somewhere.

 

[AZCat]

Get on topic, start a new thread or I will report you for derailing this thread.

It's as much my fault as his, stateofgrace. I'll stop responding to off-topic tangents.

 

[stateofgrace]

It's as much my fault as his, stateofgrace. I'll stop responding to off-topic tangents.

Thank you. I understand the frustration but the OP in this thread deserves attention because it is based on critical thinking and because it comes from a member who has previously stated his position as being a truth movement member and he believed 911 was an inside job.

I find it refreshing to see such honesty from the truth movement and feel that this thread should not be allowed to sink into yet another WTC 7 free for all.

Stateofgrace.

 

[RAZEtheFLAG]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise. It was poorly built and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked. The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire. I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires. It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse. Is this your big comparison? Is this even remotely what is claimed to have happened on 9/11?

 

[stateofgrace]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise. It was poorly built and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked. The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire. I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires. It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse. Is this your big comparison? Is this even remotely what is claimed to have happened on 9/11?

Reported.

 

[A W Smith]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise. It was poorly built and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked. The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire. I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires. It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse. Is this your big comparison? Is this even remotely what is claimed to have happened on 9/11?

So you are saying it didn't even have the weight of a 44 story building sitting on top of it and yet it still collapsed in fifteen minutes?

Do you care to address the op?
particularly this?

Nonetheless, there is no hard evidence yet that WTC7 was a CD.

 

[quicknthedead]

according to beachnut, a CD always looks like a Collapse, so it would be very eye-catching would they produce a CD that does not look like a collapse.

and also if WTC7 would have not collapsed, alot JREFers would get suspiciously, they expect buildings to collapse.

Hi DC,

I notice you did not comment on the point of the post.

Can you overcome its logic (i.e., that it is illogical for WTC7 to be a CD)?

 

[1337m4n]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise.

Relevance? Are taller buildings somehow more resistant to global collapse?

It was poorly built

Define "poorly built". Did it use square instead of triangular support sections? Was the steel too thin?

and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked.

False.

And irrelevant even if it were true: the WTC buildings had their fireproofing stripped off, remember? Several groups had been questioning the quality of the fireproofing in the upper floors of the Twin Towers, remember?

The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire.

Relevance? Do fire alarms prevent buildings from collapsing somehow?

I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires.

But, was it hit by an airliner? Or by thousands of tons of falling debris?

It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse.

Read the reports again.

Is this your big comparison? Is this even remotely what is claimed to have happened on 9/11?

There's also the book AZCat suggested.

I also have this, but of course you are going to find some inane reason to nitpick such as it being built in a hot climate rather than in New York. So why do you help us out, and tell us exactly what criteria you are looking for?

 

[bonavada]

The Kader toy factory was a four story building not exactly a high-rise. It was poorly built and had totally unprotected steel and absolutely no fire prevention system that worked. The fire alarm didn't even go off and the workers kept working even after it was known to be on fire. I also read where it was on fire multiple times before and wasn't repaired yet from previous fires. It was totally engulfed in flames and it might have but I don't see where it's claimed to have suffered complete global collapse. Is this your big comparison? Is this even remotely what is claimed to have happened on 9/11?

What you ask is nigh impossible. The events at the WTC were unique with no parallel. Considering the intractibility of your tenet I could justifyably turn the question on its head and ask.....When has a steel structured high-rise building suffered similar damage and fires and NOT collapsed?

But I wont.

BV

 

[quicknthedead]

And to quicknthedead:

No, it looked like massive structural failure.

Yes, it looks like a massive structural failure to you (and to me as well); on this there is no question. However, I can understand why those in the 9/11 truth movement say it looks like a CD.

Both are honest interpretations of what was seen.

Nonetheless, the truth of the collapse can only be one of the answers...and the point of my post is it is illogical to think WTC7 was a CD.

 

[Confuseling]

Regarding the OP: Good post. One minor detail I think you might have overlooked is the extra risk of getting caught inherent in the fact that the building's smaller.

Explosives placed at ground level are all things being equal more likely to create visible flashes, audible bangs, and detectable seismic signatures. Additionally, with less wreckage, I can only assume that a higher proportion of the wreckage would be tainted with chemical residue or remnants of devices, making them considerably easier to find. There will be less destruction unleashed during the collapse, and no smoldering pile equivalent to the WTC 1 and 2 remains, so deliberately destroyed structural elements will be found more quickly, and in a condition more representative of their condition at the point of collapse.

In short, it would be an insane plan - far too insane for anybody capable of pulling it off to actually believe in.

ETA: I realise that these comparisons only make sense in the 'deliberate demolition' as opposed to 'controlled demolition' case where only a few columns are attacked, but as that is the only remotely plausible hypothesis, that's where I'm going.

 

[quicknthedead]

and i do have email contact to a very well known structural engineering professor that is agreeing that WTC7 is a CD.

DC,

I believe you if you say so.

All the same, if you could line up you 100 SE's that say it was a CD, and I were to line 100 SE's that say it was not, this still would not address the point of the post: It is illogical to think that WTC7 was a CD based upon the parameters involved.

And I think if we could get all 200 of our SE's together, and they all honestly evaluated the logic of the post, they would be in agreement.

If you have logic to overcome it, please share it.
If you don't, that is OK too.

However, now that you are here and are for 9/11 truth, your addressing this one way or another would be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[bonavada]

Both are honest interpretations of what was seen.

AFAIAC this is true. WTC7 did look like a controlled demolition. But that is it. Appearances can be deceptive.
I wonder in what other manner could/would any high rise building collapse after major structural failure? I cannot for the life of me imagine any other fashion in which that building might have fallen to the ground given the damage.
Also, am I right in thinking that WTC 7 was not "steel structured" in the sense that the towers were?

BV

 

[RAZEtheFLAG]

What you ask is nigh impossible. The events at the WTC were unique with no parallel. Considering the intractibility of your tenet I could justifyably turn the question on its head and ask.....When has a steel structured high-rise building suffered similar damage and fires and NOT collapsed?

But I wont.

BV

There are plenty of buildings that have had structural damage and fires and didn't end up looking anything like a CD. Bombs, gas explosions, earthquakes, arson, still no global collapse.