WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[Arus808]

So, regarding the cause of WTC 7 collapse, the answer is not an easily understandable, or straighforward one...

This begs the question:- why are so many OT JREFers absolutely certain it was due to fire and debis damage?

point is we aren't. THe probablity is VERY high that the damage suffered by WTC 7 as supported by the EVIDENCE, suggest that the debris from teh collapse of wtc 1, damaged and set fire to WTC 7. And the layout of the building itself, was also responsible to why the building collapsed


read the preliminary NIST report on WTC7

 

[PhantomWolf]

I've asked you before. How is Blanchard an expert?

He works for a company highly involved in the industry, monitoring it and working with those that do it, he doesn't just publish it.

If I were to publish Sports Illustrated would that make me a professional athlete?

Blanchard isn't just a publisher, he works in the field with the guys that put the little things that go bang in the holes. If youwant to make an analogy it'd be closer to say he's the guy the goes with the team taking photos, monitoring heart rates, and documenting everything the Atheletes do. In the end a person doing that job would likely know far more about the sport than those playing it since those playing it are only concerned with their own part. he has to deal with the entire job.

Were did Blanchard go to school?

Why haven't you found this out yet? You were told to contact him and ask. If you were serious about it, you'd have done it by now. His employers at Protec obviously don't have a problem with his qualifications.

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why

Baloney he explained to PM why. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

The paper printed an retraction and apology almost immediately he told them of their error. Further he says

"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

This Mark Loizeaux?

And where does he say that the Towers were CD'ed in that quote? A quote I'd note is from a neo-nazi paper and only has the word of a neo-nazi as to what Mark Loizeaux actually said, but hey why not believe him over Loizeaux himself.

 

[pomeroo]

The 'Twin Towers' didn't look like CD, so why would he say otherwise?

WTC 7 did look like a CD, and Jowenko said it was definitely a CD, and he should know, being a professional in that field.
I would hazard a guess that ALL collapses that he's seen which look like that were CDs.

So, where exactly are we? Jowenko said to me in a long phone conversation (see the thread "Is Danny Jowenko Echt Woo-woo?") that he has no problem with the conclusion that jihadists hijacked planes and flew them into the Twin Towers. The Towers collapsed as a consequence of the impacts and resultant fires. Jowenko thinks that WTC 7 was demolished to hide sensitive documents of some sort.

Thus, we have an icon for your side ripping the heart out of your central fantasy and offering a cockeyed explanation for an event he hasn't examined very closely. Your "logic" is puzzling: Jowenko is a CD-expert; CD-experts can recognize CDs; Jowenko claims something is a CD, ergo it must be.

Why, when Jowenko states that the collapses of the Twin Towers were NOT CDs, doesn't that settle the matter? Why, when CD-experts in this country UNANIMOUSLY reject the myth of explosives at the WTC complex, don't they know what they're talking about?

Just how selective do you think you can be without getting laughed off the stage?

 

[pomeroo]

I've asked you before. How is Blanchard an expert? If I were to publish Sports Illustrated would that make me a professional athlete? Were did Blanchard go to school? The same place Meigs went?

And stop with the Bush appointee will you?

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.co...8131/27474.htm

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
First, the doctor of physics right after 9/11 said WTC brought down by explosive devices but later abruptly recanted. Federal Lawsuit contends he may have been unduly influenced by government officials with statements only being cleared up through legal discovery methods.
15 Jun 2005

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

This Mark Loizeaux?

Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble

Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.

How do you expect to foist these clumsy lies and fabrications on people who know so much than you do?

How many times have I posted what Mark Loizeaux told me over the phone? To refresh your memory, he explained that he is not qualified to identify molten "steel" and never actually saw the pools of metal. He also explained in great detail why the CD-myth is absurd: the logistical problems of such a clandestine operation would be insurmountable.

You are citing the ravings of a neo-Nazi crackpot.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Having a quick peek on the net I discovered the following from an Admin on a demolitions forum:

I am sorry we do not allow discussion of 9/11. No matter how many times us demolition contractors explain that it was not a controlled demolition; there will always be conspiracy theorist that will debate it was.

He also points out that he gets copious amounts of e-mail on the subject from people who won't accept that it wasn't a CD.

 

[johnny karate]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires. -Fema Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination

Awesome. However, there is nothing here that proves a CD. You might as well have posted a random page from the Flagstaff, AZ phone book. Also, for future reference speculation based on inconclusive data does not = physical evidence. You fail.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/index.html

On August 12, 2005, the New York Times announced the release of more than 12,000 pages of oral histories in the form of transcripts of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency medical responders.

The following pages excerpt passages from the accounts pertaining to the observation of aspects of the destruction of the Twin Towers.*

* Explosions
* Dust clouds
* Ground shaking

The accounts also contain numerous descriptions of advanced warnings that WTC 7 would collapse.

Please provide quotes from anywhere in these testimonies where someone reported seeing an explosive device, related equipment, or a person or persons planting and/or removing them. Wait... I'll save you the time. There aren't any. You fail.

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/27474.htm

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
First, the doctor of physics right after 9/11 said WTC brought down by explosive devices but later abruptly recanted. Federal Lawsuit contends he may have been unduly influenced by government officials with statements only being cleared up through legal discovery methods.
15 Jun 2005

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

I'm not sure why you provided a CD expert who doesn't agree with you. You must have misread my post. I wanted you to provide one that does. Whatever baseless fantasies you manufacture doesn't change the fact that Van Romero does not support your movement. You fail.

A real investigation.

I sincerely wish you and your movement luck in getting this off the ground, and anxiously await the results. If I may make a suggestion though, you might want someone other than yourself to handle the investigative aspects. You don't seem to have much aptitude for the process.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

There is no Soviet Union genius so I really don't know what you meant.

Funny, but you seemed to know what I meant when you said:

Really? Is that all? How much did the FBI share information with the CIA leading up to 9/11 and vica versa genius? Why didn't they? Are soviet agents the only concern of the agencies housed in WTC7 or is this delusion exclusive to you? Tell me more.

Took about 12 hours for you to see your opportunity to be clever, apparently. Way to go.

But yes, youy clearly DID understand the soviet reference, as the prototypical example of a nefarious, uber-smooth, double agent. Someone willing and able, say, to wade into a massive, burning debris field...to penetrate a burning, badly damaged building... to steal some sort of vital information stored on the premises.

I was originally going to use KAOS instead of Soviets, but figured you wouldn't get the reference.

Regardless, I never thought that you might actually suggest that the FBI or CIA might be the party "they" feared getting their hands on the "secret files". Your ludicrous suggestion that the FBI might have destroyed the building to prevent the CIA from accessing their files, or vice versa, which you tie in with their historical reluctance to collaborate, is without question the most important (and entertaining) point you raise. It proves that your train has completely jumped the tracks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Method? Lay a charge during the 15 minutes the guard takes a break everyday and the charge will survive the only two, small fires caught on video.

I apologise for even trying to refute this suggestion. I should, of course, have nominated it for a Stundie at once, an omission I now intend to rectify.

Dave

 

[buka001]

The problem with WTC7 is you have thousands of people, who have no understanding of engineering principles what so ever. Now these people have never in their entire lives seen a building collapse for any reason other than a CD.

They see the videos on youtube, tv etc. They think wow, looks like a CD. Some people unfortunately stick with that assumption, because they have nothing else at their dispossal to fit what they have seen.

They feel affirmed in their beliefs because they view troffer blogs etc that purport to have expert opinion stating that the building was brought down by a CD. They never stop to think about logic, they never sit back and question anything. They blindly accept this as gospel.

In my opinion. The best way to address the issue of WTC7, with conspiracy theorists is to ask the following simple logical questions.

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

If they can be answered satisfactorily, then the debate on the reason for collapse can progress.

 

[Dave Rogers]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge,

Theory, no, but there's a fairly detailed hypothesis in the interim NIST report.

what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

Let's see.

(1) If NIST concludes that the building must have been demolished by explosives and their reasoning is, well, reasonable.
(2) Physical evidence of demolition explosives from the WTC7 debris pile with a verified chain of custody.
(3) A general consensus in the structural engineering community, backed up by peer reviewed publications, that the collapse could only have been due to explosives or other human intervention.

Arguments about the similarity between the observed collapse and a CD simply don't cut it, sorry. Without some model of how a building should or should not collapse due to fire and debris damage - which cannot be derived from common sense - then there is no comparison between how WTC7 fell and how it should have fallen, and without that there is no line of argument.

Dave

 

[Sabrina]

Really?

What year did the Soviet Union fall?

What year was the WTC site attacked for the second time?

And thirdly what the hell are you insinuating?

*sigh*

Zen, I am well aware that the Soviet Union has long since fallen. So is the military. I said they trained for Soviet TACTICS, and up UNTIL 9/11, Russia was still considered a highly volatile enemy of sorts. Training was conducted to ensure that we would be ready for possible war with the Soviets. To a lesser extent, we also trained for Korea. The POINT is, when BillyRay offered up the Soviet example, I was explaining to you that it was a perfectly logical assumption AT THAT TIME. FOLLOWING 9/11, we are more likely to focus on Islamic extremists than Soviet agents.

For an example; prior to 9/11, and AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union, do you know what language was the one that, if you spoke it, meant you could pretty much write your ticket anywhere in the intelligence community? Russian. It's been replaced now by Arabic, Korean, and French (in that order as I understand it, and don't get up in arms about the French part; French is the language that many Arabic speakers learn as their second language rather than English, so it makes sense), but it is still a viable language to learn.

As to what I'm insinuating, I'd think that would be obvious; why not read my posts again and see if you can understand them better the second time around.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Funny, but you seemed to know what I meant when you said:

Took about 12 hours for you to see your opportunity to be clever, apparently. Way to go.

But yes, youy clearly DID understand the soviet reference, as the prototypical example of a nefarious, uber-smooth, double agent. Someone willing and able, say, to wade into a massive, burning debris field...to penetrate a burning, badly damaged building... to steal some sort of vital information stored on the premises.

I was originally going to use KAOS instead of Soviets, but figured you wouldn't get the reference.

Regardless, I never thought that you might actually suggest that the FBI or CIA might be the party "they" feared getting their hands on the "secret files". Your ludicrous suggestion that the FBI might have destroyed the building to prevent the CIA from accessing their files, or vice versa, which you tie in with their historical reluctance to collaborate, is without question the most important (and entertaining) point you raise. It proves that your train has completely jumped the tracks.

Maybe youy understood but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you would understand there are more security concerns for data and documents these days than just some 10 year defunct cold war nation. My mistake.

The failure to share information between the FBI and the CIA is topical to 9/11 and why I used it as an example instead of something like KAOS from a 1960's sitcom. You really need to get with it and try to catch up "Billy Ray Valentine". Trading Places? Geez. How funny.

All that being said is thisthe only reason you can think of in relation to security of a building that housed SEC, Secret Service, The Mayors Emergency bunker, and the CIA?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

How do you expect to foist these clumsy lies and fabrications on people who know so much than you do?

How many times have I posted what Mark Loizeaux told me over the phone? To refresh your memory, he explained that he is not qualified to identify molten "steel" and never actually saw the pools of metal. He also explained in great detail why the CD-myth is absurd: the logistical problems of such a clandestine operation would be insurmountable.

You are citing the ravings of a neo-Nazi crackpot.

Mark Loizeaux
who got the contract to clean-up the WTC site? Is this your only demo expert who supports the official version?

NAZI? What's not true? Site it.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

He works for a company highly involved in the industry, monitoring it and working with those that do it, he doesn't just publish it.



Blanchard isn't just a publisher, he works in the field with the guys that put the little things that go bang in the holes. If youwant to make an analogy it'd be closer to say he's the guy the goes with the team taking photos, monitoring heart rates, and documenting everything the Atheletes do. In the end a person doing that job would likely know far more about the sport than those playing it since those playing it are only concerned with their own part. he has to deal with the entire job.



Why haven't you found this out yet? You were told to contact him and ask. If you were serious about it, you'd have done it by now. His employers at Protec obviously don't have a problem with his qualifications.



Baloney he explained to PM why. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

The paper printed an retraction and apology almost immediately he told them of their error. Further he says

"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."



And where does he say that the Towers were CD'ed in that quote? A quote I'd note is from a neo-nazi paper and only has the word of a neo-nazi as to what Mark Loizeaux actually said, but hey why not believe him over Loizeaux himself.

Where did Blanchard get his expertise? It's easy. Just answer it.

I'll take Romero's first impression of the towers as an expert instead of his revisionism wrapped in a Bush appointment thank you.

 

[SDC]

All that being said is thisthe only reason you can think of in relation to security of a building that housed SEC, Secret Service, The Mayors Emergency bunker, and the CIA?

Z.Smack, I think there were other occupants of WTC7 -- if I recall correctly, New Yorkers who knew the building referred to it as "the Salomon Brothers building." I may not be correct; I never have worked that far downtown. So let's see -- there are various government agencies sharing the building, plus corporations, and the largest (I think) spaceholder was, Salomon Brothers (plus at some point Smith Barney). If the secrets were so secret, why were they shared in an open building? Was Salomon Brothers a secret government agency as well? I think a person who occasionally posts here were at Sal Bros.

The idea of WTC7 as a hive of secret official activity is the Bunk.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Awesome. However, there is nothing here that proves a CD. You might as well have posted a random page from the Flagstaff, AZ phone book. Also, for future reference speculation based on inconclusive data does not = physical evidence. You fail.

Given your record of lack of comprehension I'm sure that is true.

Please provide quotes from anywhere in these testimonies where someone reported seeing an explosive device, related equipment, or a person or persons planting and/or removing them. Wait... I'll save you the time. There aren't any. You fail.

They're there. Just use your mouse and click. It's easy.

I'm not sure why you provided a CD expert who doesn't agree with you. You must have misread my post. I wanted you to provide one that does. Whatever baseless fantasies you manufacture doesn't change the fact that Van Romero does not support your movement. You fail.

Sure he does....

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Z.Smack, I think there were other occupants of WTC7 -- if I recall correctly, New Yorkers who knew the building referred to it as "the Salomon Brothers building." I may not be correct; I never have worked that far downtown. So let's see -- there are various government agencies sharing the building, plus corporations, and the largest (I think) spaceholder was, Salomon Brothers (plus at some point Smith Barney). If the secrets were so secret, why were they shared in an open building? Was Salomon Brothers a secret government agency as well? I think a person who occasionally posts here were at Sal Bros.

The idea of WTC7 as a hive of secret official activity is the Bunk.

The building and the different agencies were open to everyone who shared the building?

 

[sts60]

Lack of the unmistakable collapse indicators observed by FDNY that day.

So because it looked like it was structurally unsound, that proves no CD?

No, I neither said nor implied that.

The building was observed to have unmistakable collapse indicators. FDNY expected it to come down by itself. That does not by itself preclude CD - that is ruled out for other reasons, on which I have already elaborated.

I don't think that would qualify as suitable evidence or logic.

One word: parsimony. More words: Since there is strong evidence for "natural" collapse, and only weak and ambiguous evidence for CD, there is no logical need for the CD explanation - it's unparsimonious.

There are also no good reasons for it, and good reasons why it makes no sense, but that's covered elsewhere.

 

[NDBoston]

The building and the different agencies were open to everyone who shared the building?

I had free access on any Salomon Smith Barney floor. We had the most sq ft in 7 and dominated the building with employees. I could have accessed the same floors as some of the Federal agencies too where Salomon had space. It doesn't sound exactly like "Area 51" now does it?

Please explain how the building was wired for CD on floors 18-45 without anyone noticing that.

 

[SDC]

The building and the different agencies were open to everyone who shared the building?

I have no idea. But no government intelligence agency would be dumb enough to put super secret archives in a building shared by many, many others. Now perhaps you are going to say, "Yuck, yuck, Dubya is dumb enough." Probably not; did you know his Yale GPA was higher than Kerry's? -- but in any case I bet the lifetime civil servants are not that dumb.

So you should retreat to the notion that everyone in the building had to work for a secret government agency because the likes of the CIA infested it. But you know, of course, that not all intelligence community work is secret. Much is not. I spent a couple years translating (for lousy pay) public documents from Russian and Ukrainian into English for the Joint Publications Research Service (does that still exist?), which translations were publically available and used by scholars. My worst memory of that is a report of the newly independent Ukraine's IRS-equivalent, ca.1993. I remember screaming at my manager (the woman who sent me the articles to be translated): "There is not a goddamned active verb in the whole thing! It's all passive voice!" What a nightmare. Good practice, though.