WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

PhantomWolf said:
Yet you see nothing wrong with sending in a covert team of demolistion people who managed to sneak in without being seen, breaking virtually every law there is about the usage and cartage of explosives.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry do I need to subscribe to your specific narrative in order for you to be able to respond?

Why don't you get a mirror?
 
Well you seem to be claiming that between deciding that the building was dangerous, and it coming down, someone had it wired for demolistion then blew it up. If it wasn't a covert demolition team that had to sneak their explosives in all while avoiding the thousand and one TV camera, reporters, photographers, fire crews, and nosey public that had gathered about the area (and were later told to get out when the buildings started to come down.) You are the one claiming that it was blown up, but so far it seems to me that whoever this they was, they did it with magic.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Well you seem to be claiming that between deciding that the building was dangerous, and it coming down, someone had it wired for demolistion then blew it up. If it wasn't a covert demolition team that had to sneak their explosives in all while avoiding the thousand and one TV camera, reporters, photographers, fire crews, and nosey public that had gathered about the area (and were later told to get out when the buildings started to come down.) You are the one claiming that it was blown up, but so far it seems to me that whoever this they was, they did it with magic.
Click to expand...
No Phantom the OP asked for what reason would WTC7 have been brought down on purpose not exactly how.
 
And how many different people can you send into a building that's not sound or could suffer a partial or even just a roof collapse. What are your choices if you are never safely going to be able to get into the building to retrieve anything?
Click to expand...

Either the building will collapse on its own or it will not. If it does not then there will be a way to get inside eventually and retreive your materials. Those materials are secure where they are in the meantime.

The Windsor building was more severely damaged than WTC 7. The only thing that saved it from complete collapse was the conrete core columns. Yet this building was later entered and eventually torn down.

I'm saying it might be the best choice they could make under certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

ok, modified

Repeat after me
"I Zensmack89, believe that under the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 was a secure and efficient way to destroy sensitive materials."

ETA, I'll have to wait until tomorrow to see if you will stick to your claim. midnight. tired. work tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
ZENSMACK89 said:
I said if you're stuck on traditional CD maybe you should read that. Are you stuck on CD?
Click to expand...

It's funny--I conducted my own interview with Stacy Loizeaux and her father Mark. They were gracious enough to spend a hour explaining how a building is prepared for demolition. What can I say? You just don't get it. Try reading your own posts. She does say--doesn't she?--that a chimney can be prepared in half a day. Buildings take a bit longer.

I know your inclination is to rattle off some nonsensical instant response, but try something different for once. Pause for a moment. Read the interview with Stacy that you posted. Now, think about what she said. Reread NDBoston's post.

None of this is getting through, is it?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
No Phantom the OP asked for what reason would WTC7 have been brought down on purpose not exactly how.
Click to expand...

So as long as you can speculate up a motive, you don't have to deal with method and opportunity? Wow, that'd make the police's job a lot easier. Hey, let's go one better and remove the need to prove there was actually a crime... oh, wait, you already have that one covered too.
 
So according to Zen, here is what we should believe:

10:05am: the south tower falls.
10:28am: The north tower falls.
5:20pm: WTC7 Falls.

In the almost 7 hours between the collapse of the second tower and the collapse of WTC7, someone decides:
1) that there is information that should be destroyed, so
2) he/she gets a hold of a demolition firm,
3) gets them to come up with a plan to conduct a CD of WTC7,
4) get the explosives out there
5) and installed while the building is on fire and then
6) blow them causing the collapse of WTC7. :boggled:
 
Drs_Res said:
So according to Zen, here is what we should believe:

10:05am: the south tower falls.
10:28am: The north tower falls.
5:20pm: WTC7 Falls.

In the almost 7 hours between the collapse of the second tower and the collapse of WTC7, someone decides:
1) that there is information that should be destroyed, so
2) he/she gets a hold of a demolition firm,
3) gets them to come up with a plan to conduct a CD of WTC7,
4) get the explosives out there
5) and installed while the building is on fire and then
6) blow them causing the collapse of WTC7. :boggled:
Click to expand...

7) announce 1 hour before the collapse that it is going to collapse
 
Someone at LC posted the theory that flight 93 was meant for wtc7, since it didn't touch the building the plan had to be changed, from the top would be suspicious in that case, that would even a JREF'er question the collapse.
 
einsteen said:
Someone at LC posted the theory that flight 93 was meant for wtc7, since it didn't touch the building the plan had to be changed, from the top would be suspicious in that case, that would even a JREF'er question the collapse.
Click to expand...
That would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
 
einsteen said:
Someone at LC posted the theory that flight 93 was meant for wtc7, since it didn't touch the building the plan had to be changed, from the top would be suspicious in that case, that would even a JREF'er question the collapse.
Click to expand...

Somebody posted a photo here a couple of days ago showing the Manhattan skyline pre-911. One thing that was noticeable from the photo was the way the Twin Towers stuck out far above every other building around, making them extremely easy for an inexperienced pilot to find and crash into. One of the other things that was noticeable was the way WTC7 didn't. The idea that al-Qaeda would have targeted a building that nobody outside New York had even heard of, and that was surrounded on all sides by similar sized buildings making it almost impossible to hit, is so absurd that no conspirator with half a brain cell would consider it for a moment as a cover story.

Note that this suggestion from LCF requires that the conspirators had thought about it in advance and wired the bottom of the building for demolition (as well as a range of possible impact floors near the top) just in case the plane didn't turn up and some debris from WTC1 happened to hit WTC7 and do enough damage to make a collapse look plausible. I would have thought that such a scenario is too far fetched for even an LCF'er to consider, except for the fact that I've seen what actually does get accepted over there.

Dave
 
Drs_Res said:
So according to Zen, here is what we should believe:
In the almost 7 hours between the collapse of the second tower and the collapse of WTC7, someone decides:
1) that there is information that should be destroyed, so
2) he/she gets a hold of a demolition firm,
3) gets them to come up with a plan to conduct a CD of WTC7,
4) get the explosives out there
5) and installed while the building is on fire and then
6) blow them causing the collapse of WTC7. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Unless of course it was rigged already for the sole purpose of destroying whatever needed it.

Lets also examine some time figures that Stacey uses in the documentary, wrecking ball.
Interview with Stacey Loizeaux

NOVA: I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.

SL: Right.

NOVA: Can you explain why?

SL: Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity. And we're dealing with Class A explosives that are embedded into concrete—and that concrete flies. So, let's say your explosive is 17,000 feet per second—you've got a piece of concrete moving at that speed when you remove it from the structure. So we try to use the minimal amount to keep down the fly of debris for a safe operation. Other than that, it comes down to cost effectiveness. You know, the more holes you have to drill, it's more labor, more time, and it's more expensive. So, obviously, the smallest amount of work is best.
Click to expand...
Demo Specialist Daughter Louizex- 14 story hospital brought down in 7 seconds or in a general CD.
Wrecking Ball Discovery Channel

Another time frame:
City multi-storey blocks blown up
Two giant multi-storey tower blocks in Edinburgh have been blown up in a controlled explosion by experts.

It took less than 10 seconds the 16-storey blocks to be reduced to 18,000 tonnes of rubble.

It doesn't look good for fire in regards to WTC 7 but the speculation for motivation could go on forever.
 
Indeed the only way you could hit it is from the north and that would still be very tricky especially for United 93 which would arrive from the southwest.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Unless of course it was rigged already for the sole purpose of destroying whatever needed it.
Click to expand...

What is your explanation on how would they would have justified the building collapse, if none of the debris from the towers had hit the building, and fires would have never even started? It would have been a rigged building ready for demolition, but no obvious excuse whatsoever to actually demolish it without getting caught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom