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

[bonavada]

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.

No global collapse from earthquakes? Are you serious?

ETA Retract. I may have missed your point above.

But to re-iterate. I stated similar damage. That is, a building hundreds of storeys high collapsing onto a much smaller neighbour, causing major damage together with large untackled fires. Show me an example of a building that stood despite that?
I think you will have difficulty finding one.
Of course my question is ridiculous. The difference between me and you is I recognise that.

BV

 

[twinstead]

RAZEtheFLAG, many, if not most, 911 conspriacists are SURE that WTC7 was brought down by CD. How are they sure? Do you imply that the 'official story' about WTC is physically impossible?

 

[quicknthedead]

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? Doesn't the claim that it takes weeks to place explosives to knock down a building work against the theory that all the stars were aligned on 9-11 where a bunch of buildings completely fell down just like a cd without any of that preparation?

Sorry, RAZEtheFLAG. I do not understand what you mean.

A possible motive could be the WTC-7 was meant to have fallen down in the morning with the rest of the buildings but something went wrong and it took longer. For instance maybe it was a dud or a third plane never made it.

Then there is always the CT that wtc-7 was where the 9-11 operation was run from so it was destroyed when the mission was complete.

Like everyone so far, you are not addressing the point logic of the post.

It states basically that a plan made ahead of time by hypothetical conspirators to do a CD on WTC7 would never have gone forward because the plan was flawed from the beginning.

How was it flawed?

No one could possibly have known the extent of damage caused by the towers collapsing (and if they were even to collapse).

Without knowing ahead of time the extent of debris damage to WTC7 resulting from collapse of the towers (which would be needed in order to provide the green light for setup of WTC7 for CD to provide a cover story for its destruction {i.e., an explanation other than CD}), no one in their right mind would have proceeded with the CD. To do so would mean acting upon a seriously flawed plan, which would be illogical and make no sense.

You did not address this point of logic.

(BTW, the nice thing about logic is you don't have to go to school to get it, although that could certainly help depending upon the person; and everyone is capable of dealing with it if they want to.)

Can you overcome it now? (At least give it a try.)
Thanks.

 

[quicknthedead]

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?

RAZEtheFLAG,

I don't think there is anything all that simple about 9/11 except that evil had a field day, and sometimes (most of the time?) things are complex.

 

[quicknthedead]

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.

Thanks, stateofgrace, and I do appreciate your efforts to keep it on track.

Isn't there anyone in the 9/11 truth movement who wants to offer a logical response to the OP?

Yes, no, anything...?

If nothing...well, maybe that's an answer by itself.

Please, think about it.
Thanks.

 

[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.

OK, sleahead, I just posted this OP (for both logic points) over at the stj911 forum.

Since it is open only to members, I will keep an eye on it periodically to see if there are any meaningful replies that I can provide from there to here.

 

[Arus808]

can some tell Raze to start his own thread and stop deraling this one. Or just point him toe ht WTC 7 interim report and ignore him until he has a real question, or has evdience of his claims

 

[quicknthedead]

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.

The bolded part is true for everyone and should always be part of consideration and deliberation.
9/11 TM would do well to dwell upon this regarding WTC7 (and the logic in the OP).

Sometimes stating the "obviously simple" is best.

Thanks, bonavada.

 

[quicknthedead]

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.

Yes, excellent observation, Confuseling! And no, I had not thought of this.

I have added it to my list of points that now number three on this subject found in the OP.

Thanks!

PS Strange, thing, but I posted my thanks to you for this point awhile back and then came to find that the post never happened.

I am sure it was due to (my) "operator error".

 

[gumboot]

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

Actually it was three four storey buildings. A lower building has less liklihood of collapsing due to a lower gravity load from upper floors, so this doesn't really assist your argument.

It was poorly built

This is false.

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

Making it an excellent comparison to the WTC towers and WTC7.

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

Both of these are false, although neither has any bearing on the structural performance of the building.

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

This is false.

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.

The fire spread rapidly throughout Building One, and the upper floors soon became untenable. The blaze blocked the stairwell at the south end of the building, so most of the workers rushed to the north stairwell. This meant that approximately 1,100 people were trying to leave the third and fourth floors through a single stairwell.

The first fire apparatus arrived at 4:40 p.m., their response time having been extended because of the relatively remote location of the facility and the gridlock conditions typical of Bangkok traffic. Arriving fire-fighters found Building One heavily involved in flames and already beginning to collapse, with people jumping from the third and fourth floors.

Despite the fire-fighters' efforts, Building One collapsed completely at approximately 5:14 p.m. Fanned by strong winds blowing toward the north, the blaze spread quickly into Buildings Two and Three before the fire brigade could effectively defend them. Building Two reportedly collapsed at 5:30 p.m., and Building Three at 6:05 p.m.

Stellman, J. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, International Labour Organisation (1998)

(my bolding)

 

[Miragememories]

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.

You can find my thoughts on this here;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3696612#post3696612

MM

 

[A W Smith]

You can find my thoughts on this here;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3696612#post3696612

MM

Well I took a look at that thread and in typical 'kneejerk' fashion,
the usual cast of clowns are re-establishing their ability to post
absolutely nothing of substance regarding this topic.

Your points are nothing special and I see no difficulty in responding to them.

I'm not so foolish as to expect my responses to carry any weight but for the odd visitor who may be interested, I'll provide a response.

quicknthedead writes; " If WTC7 was a CD, it had to have been setup well beforehand, since a CD takes a minimum of weeks to prepare."

Preparation time is dependent on the number of participants, their level of expertise, the amount of continuous time available and the method used to remove the core support. You have no idea what the answer is to any of these points is, so your statement is pure speculation. Danny Jowenko, regardless of how you interpret his reaction to the information about the WTC 7 fires, his expert opinion was that it would have been possible to successfully prep WTC 7 in the time available on 9/11.

um. no it wasn't. when confronted with the problem that the building was on fire. all day. Jowenko postulated that the building had to be prepared in advance

quicknthedead performs an act of mindreading; "...for he [Danny Jowenko] 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."

Danny Jowenko has never said or given any contrary indication that he changed his mind about the possibility of a same day CD preparation of WTC 7.

Assuming that you are not an expert in controlled demolition methodology, you have no credibility in claiming you know the sole basis for Danny Jowenko's determination that the WTC 7's collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.
Danny Jowenko, when interviewed several months later, stated that he absolutely stood by his original controlled demolition belief. As an interesting side note, Danny also indicated why he believed controlled demolition experts in the U.S. would be unwilling to go on record and agree that WTC 7 was a CD.

Then Danny Jowenko is unfamiliar with the way demolition contracts are handled in the United States. as i have pointed out previously. if the lowest bidder is not awarded the contracts. they can sue.

quicknthedead writes; "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."

Your thinking here is really missing the point.

Obviously, if WTC 7's collapse was a CD, then it was part of the larger 9/11 plan.

Yes, it reveals that those responsible must have known about the fate of the WTC Twin Towers. It does not mean that the perpetrators expected aircraft crashes were going to bring about the collapses of the Twin Towers. The aircraft attacks served the primary purpose of "shock and awe" and they succeeded brilliantly. They also provided a cover story for the demolition of the Twin Towers. They had to be certain the Twin Towers would collapse and they had no reasonable expectation to base a belief that the aircraft impacts would achieve that result. The plan called for certainty, and not "let's see what happens." Therefore, it's logical to assume that if the WTC 7 collapse was a CD, then so were the Twin Towers collapses. The perpetrators planned the future in advance and they obviously did so in great detail. I don't understand why you would expect them not to?

You have Two problems Merry Melodies,
1) your go to guy. Danny Jowenko does not support your contention that the twin towers were controlled demolition. Now who is the Cd expert? You? or him?
2) The stealth CD of building seven depends on it suffering collateral damage from the twin towers. Now had no debris come in contact with seven. or if the towers toppled in a southerly direction. How could the collapse of seven be explained away?

quicknthedead writes; "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."

I'm arguing MIHOP (Make It Happen On Purpose), so I have no reason to argue against LIHOP scenario.

You continue to lock your belief to the Official Story idea that the collapses of the Twin Towers were the consequence of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

As does Jowenko. Remember him? Your expert?

Regarding WTC 7; given it's proximity to WTC 1, and given the knowledge that WTC 1 was prepped to completely collapse, it was understandable that a CD of WTC 7 could easily be masked if it occurred under the umbrella of the huge collapse of WTC 1. This is where the plan must have hit it's first real snag.

For some reason the CD of WTC 7, timed to follow closely behind that of WTC 1, failed. This problem was corrected but the planned cover story was gone.

The apparent contingency plan was to let the fires become the reason for a collapse. Therefore they had to allow sufficient time for the fires to burn and create some credibility, if only a little, for their case.

It was necessary to initiate the collapse prior to sunset (6:15 p.m.) so that the absence of major internal fire would not be emphasized by approaching darkness.

MM

I don't know who is more of a conspiracy fantasy fan boy. You or Terral.
I have highlighted the two paragraphs above so the lurkers can see how paranoid and ridiculous you sound.

 

[Miragememories]

um. no it wasn't. when confronted with the problem that the building was on fire. all day. Jowenko postulated that the building had to be prepared in advance

Source?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/

You are absolutely wrong!

Actually, I wish you were right because if Jowenko had said the WTC 7 CD had to have been prepared prior to 9/11, then he would be directly acknowledging it as part of the whole 9/11 event.

But he doesn't. His response remained that it must have been a crime of opportunity [CD of WTC 7] and that the perpetrators must have responded in this manner because of the financial losses incurred by the damage from the collapse of WTC 1.

Then Danny Jowenko is unfamiliar with the way demolition contracts are handled in the United States. as i have pointed out previously. if the lowest bidder is not awarded the contracts. they can sue.

I have no idea, and obviously you don't either, as to 'what in hell' your talking about.

My only reference to U.S. control demolition experts was this;
"As an interesting side note, Danny also indicated why he believed controlled demolition experts in the U.S. would be unwilling to go on record and agree that WTC 7 was a CD."

Please explain how that can be constructed to mean; "Then Danny Jowenko is unfamiliar with the way demolition contracts are handled in the United States. as i have pointed out previously. if the lowest bidder is not awarded the contracts. they can sue."

My recommendation is that maybe you should take a course in reading comprehension.

You have Two problems Merry Melodies,

Do you really feel altering my username makes your responses better?

1) your go to guy. Danny Jowenko does not support your contention that the twin towers were controlled demolition. Now who is the Cd expert? You? or him?

That is old, well covered ground. If you wish to debate that issue, I suggest you post to that old thread that has already dealt with it. If that's too much bother, I'll dig up the link when time permits.

2) The stealth CD of building seven depends on it suffering collateral damage from the twin towers. Now had no debris come in contact with seven. or if the towers toppled in a southerly direction. How could the collapse of seven be explained away?

As we know, the towers didn't topple. They were never intended to. With WTC 1's 110 story height, those demolishing WTC 1 could be assured that sufficient debris and dust would enshroud WTC 7 and effectively mask that demolition.

As does Jowenko. Remember him? Your expert?

An expert, not "my expert."

I don't know who is more of a conspiracy fantasy fan boy. You or Terral.
I have highlighted the two paragraphs above so the lurkers can see how paranoid and ridiculous you sound.

I think you have proven yourself to qualify as the most ridiculous A W Smith.

MM

 

[beachnut]

You can find my thoughts on this here;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3696612#post3696612

MM

Pure fantasy. The standard no fact, no evidence, pathetic fiction, the trademark of 9/11 truth. Why do you and 9/11 truth avoid facts and produce pure fiction?

How does RDX avoid being cooked off in a large office fire that WTC7 experienced? Why did Smith Solomon Barney allow RDX to be planted in the walls of their office, when their own security would be tighter than most military buildings? Bad fiction, very bad.

Your lack of depth in your failed ideas about 9/11 leave so much to want, I have to turn to a Clancy novel for real fact based fiction, your ideas on 9/11 are stillborn.

 

[Miragememories]

Pure fantasy. The standard no fact, no evidence, pathetic fiction, the trademark of 9/11 truth. Why do you and 9/11 truth avoid facts and produce pure fiction?

Your lack of depth in your failed ideas about 9/11 leave so much to want, I have to turn to a Clancy novel for real fact based fiction, your ideas on 9/11 are stillborn.

Why don't you observe the responses of more mature members like R. Mackey and at least make some attempt to put something other than your own bigotry into your unsolicited replies Beachnut?

MM

 

[beachnut]

Why don't you observe the responses of more mature members like R. Mackey and at least make some attempt to put something other than your own bigotry into your unsolicited replies Beachnut?

MM

When will you find some evidence instead of hearsay?
You want to use your human approach with Danny! Funny stuff, your diatribe at LCF lacks logic.

Danny Jowenko, Controlled Demolitions Expert from the Netherlands

Seems his experience with fire is lacking! Cool, an expert right for the fantasy world of 9/11 truth on WTC7, but wrong on 1 and 2 fantasy. Seems he is a 33 percent guy, not as good as the 75 percent terrorists. He flunks the truth smell test of ironic oxymoronic logic.

Why don't you observe the rules of logic, and present some facts and evidence.
Your claims are pure fantasy. You have no evidence to back them. You have completely ignored evidence to manufacture false ideas.

It was necessary to initiate the collapse prior to sunset (6:15 p.m.) so that the absence of major internal fire would not be emphasized by approaching darkness.
MM

Pure fantasy: I think when you gain maturity and take a few physics course, you many understand fire, energy, and gravity.

It seems I am a bigot for evidence. Seems like you are a hearsay expert who makes up statements with zero base in fact. You think explosives survive fires, or that thermite was used. Who knows what you believe, it has no coherent base in fact. You are prolific in posting tons of zero fact based 9/11 truth nonsense. You need to get track and respond to the OP.

A bigot against the lies of 9/11 truth. You seem to be a fan of 9/11 truth's false ideas and made up stories. Cool, what was the OP and why do I agree, with logic? OH…

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.

Got facts? You may want to study up on fire safety, and why steel looses strength. Good luck, nice post. Thank you very much. Keep up the good work, you may one day find some facts you can make logical conclusions with.

 

[A W Smith]

here is an expert claiming that the twin towers would take a year to prepare. What does he get wrong MM? Who is more qualified? You? An anonymous Internet poster? or him?

 

[DGM]

Source?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/

MM:
Could you post a link to the source article for us that are not allowed to view the police state known as Loose Change Forum?

 

[A W Smith]

MM:
Could you post a link to the source article for us that are not allowed to view the police state known as Loose Change Forum?

this jumped out at me

DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, that can also be. Look if that man (NYFD Commander on site at WTC7] is bribed by Silverstone because he wants his payment... and here you also have a nice percentage then he writes that simply down. This is how America is tied together. That makes September 11th very hard

So MM . the firefighters are in on it? yes or no? The firefighters had a transit on the building watching the progression of a three story bulge. And None of them, Not a one, Noticed a demolition team of forty men, Run into the building to plant those charges and then run out? A building that was being carefully watched? all day?

 

[Miragememories]

MM:
Could you post a link to the source article for us that are not allowed to view the police state known as Loose Change Forum?

I was unaware that this link was blocked to 'visitors'?

MM