WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[jaydeehess]

What do you do? Whatever it is you better decide quick.

According to you one then submits to panic and does patently stupid things. Hmm, not the usual picture of secret spooks but I guess they all can't be James bond.

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's say for argument sake no inside job. But the terrorist like they are known to do followed up the plane attack with car bombs or explosive devices they were somehow able to get in the towers or in the street. Let's say some people even reported hearing secondary explosions and maybe even vans with explosives in them.

No evidence that this did take place however if there were any solid evidence of explosives being used it would indeed be the more obvious conclusion.
Perhaps there is hope for you.

 

[Swing Dangler]

No your story not mine.

Failed to foresee? It's already proven they failed to foresee by placing the emergency bunker in WTC7. Where did I say they had to go in with a few hundred kilograms of explosives"? You seem to think they can go in and out of a building all day and all night that's on the verge of collapse to get out documents that need to be shred or data that needs to be secured. Did they retrieve anything in the eight hours the building stood? You also seem to think the building can fall from fire on a few floors and supposed structural damage to one side but now the building all of sudden is going to need "few hundred kilograms of explosives" in addition to this damage to get it to fall. Why is that?

I'm pointing out possible scenarios of why they took it down not exactly how. That was the OP.

Here's another twist.

Let's say for argument sake no inside job. But the terrorist like they are known to do followed up the plane attack with car bombs or explosive devices they were somehow able to get in the towers or in the street. Let's say some people even reported hearing secondary explosions and maybe even vans with explosives in them.

Now read this…

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=auaBMcR5LnA4&refer=top_world_news

"Port Authority Found Liable in 1993 WTC Bombing (Update2)
Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) -- A New York jury said the owner of the World Trade Center was legally responsible in the 1993 terrorist bombing that killed six people and injured 1,000.

The civil trial jury today found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 68 percent liable for the attack, in which terrorists detonated explosives in a rented van in the 400-car garage under the former twin towers. The terrorists were 32 percent liable, the jury said."

That's right. Port Authority 68% liable Terrorists 32% liable. Are you telling me there is no interest from anyone to downplay or dismiss out of hand secondary explosions? Planes make it no fault.

Now how fast did Silverstein collect on WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, the buildings he held leases on?

Let's read....

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/05/world-trade-center-insurance-settlement.php

World Trade Center insurance settlement reached
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Almost six years later. And what were they all so concerned with…?

“Spitzer's office said that the settlement, which was the biggest obstacle to reconstruction at the World Trade Center site, "will save additional tens of millions in legal costs and allow the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties to focus on rebuilding at Ground Zero." Prior litigation has cost Silverstein and the insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars. “

Now what if WTC7 is on fire and severely damaged and maybe about to fall on another building which will also be costly. The building has severe damage to one side that maybe was caused by the falling towers or maybe more damage from an explosive device. Or better yet maybe the building might have been breaking some fire codes …

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 20, 2001
New York Times

“Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.”

Some people might consider taking it down before the building collapses into another building or causes an additional disaster but there’s a problem. You don’t have the time to inspect for sure if it’s going to fall to determine that. If you do purposely take it down and admit to it the insurance companies might dispute that it was necessary. If you don’t take it down it might be determined it was damaged from more then just fire and collateral damage from the plane attack on the towers in which case the Port Authority might be held liable or some broken fire codes discovered partly to blame. An added factor to all of this is an unsecured building with 10 stories of broken open windows and possible documents blowing out those windows from the Secret Service, the CIA, the SEC, etc. etc. and you can’t go in and retrieve anything quickly because it’s on fire and might collapse at any time.

What do you do? Whatever it is you better decide quick.


An added note to all of this is the Airlines and the box cutter story.

February 11, 2004: Hijackers Said to Use Short Knives, Not Box Cutters
It is reported the 9/11 Commission now believes that the hijackers used short knives instead of box cutters. The New York Observer comments, “Remember the airlines’ first reports, that the whole job was pulled off with box cutters? In fact, investigators for the commission found that box cutters were reported on only one plane [Flight 77]. In any case, box cutters were considered straight razors and were always illegal. Thus the airlines switched their story and produced a snap-open knife of less than four inches at the hearing. This weapon falls conveniently within the aviation-security guidelines pre-9/11.” [NEW YORK OBSERVER, 2/11/2004] It was publicly revealed in late 2002 that box cutters were illegal on 9/11. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 11/11/2002]

And guns…

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26641
FAA covering up 9-11 gun,
whistleblower agent says
Claims feds, American Airlines fear lawsuits; Flight 11 victims' families want Hill probe

And bombs…

(9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Passenger Jeremy Glick Describes Hijackers, Bomb
“Glick says the hijackers claimed to have a bomb, which looked like a box with something red around it. Family members immediately call emergency 9-1-1 on another line.” - [TORONTO SUN, 9/16/2001; PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 10/28/2001; LONGMAN, 2002, PP. 143; MSNBC, 7/30/2002]

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/911.call/index.html
Hijacked passenger called 911 on cell phone
September 11, 2001 Posted: 11:35 PM EDT (0335 GMT)
"We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Cramer quoted the man from a transcript of the call. The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said.

All of these stories were downplayed to reduce liability of the FAA and the Airlines. Everything that is downplayed or omitted in an investigation is just added fuel to conspiracy theories.

Great info and post Zen especially the material highlighting the liability issues.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Once again you what others have said goes sailing right over your head.

Any incriminating docuements would have been shredded hours, days or weeks before 9/11/01. There would be an extreme requirement to keep any and all alleged docuementation concerning this secure and to destroy any and all that were no longer needed. It would be of the utmost idiocy to have any such docuemantation withing a few hundred feet of the 110 storey structures that one was about to demolish anyway.
Once again I ask, what significance to this is the fact that the emergency office was located so close? Again, be specific I am getting a chill from all of your handwaving.

And once again you're not reading.

"Let's say for argument sake no inside job..."

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Great info and post Zen especially the material highlighting the liability issues.

Thanks. It seems though that some others are still having reading comprehension problems.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Am I right? Where did I leave that damn Occam's Razor??

TAM

Occam's Razor is a poor excuse for human attitudes and motivations which are indeed very complex.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Thanks. It seems though that some others are still having reading comprehension problems.

I'm sure it would be very easy to reproduce the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and asymmetrical damage via a computer modeling program. I'm surprised NIST or for that matter Purdue has not done that yet.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm sure it would be very easy to reproduce the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and asymmetrical damage via a computer modeling program. I'm surprised NIST or for that matter Purdue has not done that yet.

Or at least the "initiation". They might not follow through on the complete collapse.

 

[sts60]

No your story not mine.

For the last time: you are the one proposing the scenario that incriminating documents were stored in WTC 7, and that it was destroyed on purpose to destroy said documents. I did not claim this and I do not believe it. That makes it your story, not mine. I'm merely responding to your claim and pointing out the problems with it.

If you want to keep saying "No, it's yours!", feel free, but I see no further need to respond to such weird denial. It's cute when my kid does it. It's just bizarre and sad when a presumed adult does it.

Failed to foresee? It's already proven they failed to foresee by placing the emergency bunker in WTC7.

I agree that the occupants of WTC 7 failed to foresee the collapse of the Twin Towers. But that doesn't support your scenario.

Where did I say they had to go in with a few hundred kilograms of explosives"?

You didn't. But that's what it would have taken if CD was really required, except for one sub-scenario described below.

You seem to think they can go in and out of a building all day and all night that's on the verge of collapse to get out documents that need to be shred or data that needs to be secured. Did they retrieve anything in the eight hours the building stood?

No, I don't. I don't think such incriminating evidence would have been stored at the epicenter of the attacks - and presumed response to them - at all; that's crazy. Keeping the documents there once the attacks were underway would have been even crazier.

You also seem to think the building can fall from fire on a few floors and supposed structural damage to one side

Correction: fire on many floors and extensive structural damage to one side. I already described the unmistakable collapse indicators which developed as a result, the same kind I've studied at the fire academy. And that is my scenario, but it's not relevant because...

but now the building all of sudden is going to need "few hundred kilograms of explosives" in addition to this damage to get it to fall. Why is that?

... it's your claim that the building had to be brought down with explosives. Controlled demolition of skyscrapers takes hundreds of pounds to hundreds of kilograms of explosives, and extensive preparation, especially in built out and furnished buildings.

Now, you either accept the building was not significantly damaged, thus requiring a full load of explosives to bring down, or you accept that it didn't need the typical amount because it was significantly compromised by fire and debris damage, contradicting your line "You seem to think..." above. In either case, you're proposing that CD experts carrying significant amounts of explosives were secretly sent into the damaged, burning building and stealthily prepared it for demolition in a few hours. Either version is just nuts.

I'm pointing out possible scenarios of why they took it down not exactly how. That was the OP.

And I'm pointing out why they are crazy. You can't restrict discussion to evidence-free claims of "they might have been hiding something". We're looking at whether they make any sense or not in the first place, and we're looking at if they could have been pulled off. If you don't like having your claims sanity-checked, don't bring them up.

Here's another twist.

Not interested in more FUD smokescreen. You're just raving at this point, and not even making a coherent argument. The parts of it that are clear are just nutty - only a step or two away from the "no planes" gold standard of lunacy. I hope, for your sake, you can back away from the brink.

 

[pomeroo]

Occam's Razor is a poor excuse for human attitudes and motivations which are indeed very complex.

Hey, Swingie, thanks for your incisive response to Bernacchia's paper on the hijackers' piloting skills. Most of us thought you would ignore it again.

Excuse me? You did ignore it again? It completely destroys one of your fantasies?

Oh, that's right.

 

[jaydeehess]

Once again you what others have said goes sailing right over your head.

Any incriminating docuements would have been shredded hours, days or weeks before 9/11/01. There would be an extreme requirement to keep any and all alleged docuementation concerning this secure and to destroy any and all that were no longer needed. It would be of the utmost idiocy to have any such docuemantation withing a few hundred feet of the 110 storey structures that one was about to demolish anyway.
Once again I ask, what significance to this is the fact that the emergency office was located so close? Again, be specific I am getting a chill from all of your handwaving.

quote Zensmack:
And once again you're not reading.

"Let's say for argument sake no inside job..."

It has nothing to do with your supposition concerning no inside job. It has to do with your supposition that there were incriminating docuements in WTC 7 that needed to be destroyed. The idea that any such docuements would have beed destroyed well in advance of and for that matter kept well away from, the attacks on the towers is what sailed over your head, and now it appears that the entire flow of the thread is also too much for you to keep track of.

Do try to keep up.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler
I'm sure it would be very easy to reproduce the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and asymmetrical damage via a computer modeling program. I'm surprised NIST or for that matter Purdue has not done that yet.
Or at least the "initiation". They might not follow through on the complete collapse.

No it would not be "easy". In the case of the towers there was a lot of information about the initial damage. The mass, construction and velocity of the planes was known within an easily determined range as was the construction of the towers and where the planes hit.

Such was not the case for WTC 7. It is not known within the same range as for the towers, the mass, velocity, direction and location of the impacting debris nor is the type of debris known for certain.

So right from the beginning a model for WTC 7 would be much more complex than was carried out on the towers. Then thee is the fires. while the initial extent and progression of fires in the towers is well docuemented by video and still photos this is not the case for WTC 7 since the wreckage ofthe towers occluded the south side as did the smoke from WTC 7. The videos and photos of the towers had nothing in the way to occlude the view, no so for WTC 7. So now this makes the modelling job even worse.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

For the last time: you are the one proposing the scenario that incriminating documents were stored in WTC 7, and that it was destroyed on purpose to destroy said documents. I did not claim this and I do not believe it. That makes it your story, not mine. I'm merely responding to your claim and pointing out the problems with it.

No I'm not. Can you read or are you just lying? Not necessarily. Are all documents that are secured or are shred in any business only incriminating in nature? They might be but they also might be something that can't afford to be unsecured.

If you want to keep saying "No, it's yours!", feel free, but I see no further need to respond to such weird denial. It's cute when my kid does it. It's just bizarre and sad when a presumed adult does it.

Presumption is exactly your problem. You only seem to understand and accept the easiest of scenarios. No wonder you don't question the simplistic dummied down official version.

I agree that the occupants of WTC 7 failed to foresee the collapse of the Twin Towers. But that doesn't support your scenario.

No need for you to agree it was proven on Sept 11th. It fits perfect if you can read.

You didn't. But that's what it would have taken if CD was really required, except for one sub-scenario described below.

That's not what it would have taken for a building that is claimed to be in danger of collapse but can't be pinpointed as to when it will collapse. Some buildings are pulled down without any explosives.

"The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement." - Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services Inc.

No, I don't. I don't think such incriminating evidence would have been stored at the epicenter of the attacks - and presumed response to them - at all; that's crazy. Keeping the documents there once the attacks were underway would have been even crazier.

Why does it have to be incriminating? Maybe it is but maybe it's just SECRET. What's more secret then the CIA or the "SECRET" Service?

Correction: fire on many floors and extensive structural damage to one side. I already described the unmistakable collapse indicators which developed as a result, the same kind I've studied at the fire academy. And that is my scenario, but it's not relevant because...

So why the need for so many explosives?

... it's your claim that the building had to be brought down with explosives. Controlled demolition of skyscrapers takes hundreds of pounds to hundreds of kilograms of explosives, and extensive preparation, especially in built out and furnished buildings.

No it's not my claim it had to be brought down with explosives but it could have been.

Now, you either accept the building was not significantly damaged, thus requiring a full load of explosives to bring down, or you accept that it didn't need the typical amount because it was significantly compromised by fire and debris damage, contradicting your line "You seem to think..." above. In either case, you're proposing that CD experts carrying significant amounts of explosives were secretly sent into the damaged, burning building and stealthily prepared it for demolition in a few hours. Either version is just nuts.

No it's you who can only seem to comprehend the most simplistic and black and white situations. Thus your tendencies to presume incorrectly what people are talking about.

And I'm pointing out why they are crazy. You can't restrict discussion to evidence-free claims of "they might have been hiding something". We're looking at whether they make any sense or not in the first place, and we're looking at if they could have been pulled off. If you don't like having your claims sanity-checked, don't bring them up.

Yes they might be hiding more then just their own liability. That's crazy just because you have decided so.

Not interested in more FUD smokescreen. You're just raving at this point, and not even making a coherent argument. The parts of it that are clear are just nutty - only a step or two away from the "no planes" gold standard of lunacy. I hope, for your sake, you can back away from the brink.

You're not interesting in anything that threatens the nice warm bubble of denial and ignorance you have built up around yourself. Put your blinders back on and keep your hands tightly cupped over your ears and enjoy the bliss.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

It has nothing to do with your supposition concerning no inside job. It has to do with your supposition that there were incriminating docuements in WTC 7 that needed to be destroyed. The idea that any such docuements would have beed destroyed well in advance of and for that matter kept well away from, the attacks on the towers is what sailed over your head, and now it appears that the entire flow of the thread is also too much for you to keep track of.

Do try to keep up.

Do try to learn to read.

Are all documents that are secured or are shred in any business only incriminating in nature? They might be but they also might be something that can't afford to be unsecured.

 

[Sabrina]

I believe "pulling" a building over (i.e. attaching cables to it for the express purpose of using said cables to literally pull the building down) has only ever been done on buildings that are ten stories or less. We're talking about a 47 story building here; the type of pulling usually referred to in demolition circles (i.e. the cables again) would not be used to demolish WTC7.

 

[DavidJames]

You're not interesting in anything that threatens the nice warm bubble of denial and ignorance you have built up around yourself. Put your blinders back on and keep your hands tightly cupped over your ears and enjoy the bliss.

That’s a lot of bravado coming from someone who supports an inside job. An anonymous person accusing innocent people of mass murder without a shred of evidence.

So please blather on about others having blinders on and their hands over their ears Tell me more, CT boy. Where is your evidence? Where is your story and your evidence to support it? Can you make a case or are you limited to “just asking questions”? Intelligent, rational adults do their analysis, arrive at a conclusion and then start talking about it. Are you willing to take that challenge? Can you be a rational adult and state your case, show us your analysis?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

This is some theory of yours. Did they say anything about also locating their emergency bunker only 300 feet away from the last time the terrorist attacked?...

--------

If it was so clearly at risk then why was the emergency bunker located there?

With respect to the emergency bunker, proximity to the anticipated target was clearly a consideration. They were operating on the assumption that the towers might be attacked again, not that they would collapse. The prospect of a collapse would never have entered the picture.

Do you think the conspiracists had the same expectations? Or do you think that, just maybe, the prospect of a collapse would have influenced their thinking. Given that they were the ones blowing the building(s) up, and all.

Do you ever think before you post, even just a little bit?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

That’s a lot of bravado coming from someone who supports an inside job. An anonymous person accusing innocent people of mass murder without a shred of evidence.

So please blather on about others having blinders on and their hands over their ears Tell me more, CT boy. Where is your evidence? Where is your story and your evidence to support it? Can you make a case or are you limited to “just asking questions”? Intelligent, rational adults do their analysis, arrive at a conclusion and then start talking about it. Are you willing to take that challenge? Can you be a rational adult and state your case, show us your analysis?

Why don't you go back and read the OP to this thread and then read my posts and replies before you make a comment. Do it once before you comment next and then try to make a practice of it. Then if you want you can start your own thread based on your Blind Faith in authority and maybe I'll comment and show you where you're wrong. Again.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

With respect to the emergency bunker, proximity to the anticipated target was clearly a consideration. They were operating on the assumption that the towers might be attacked again, not that they would collapse. The prospect of a collapse would never have entered the picture.

Do you think the conspiracists had the same expectations? Or do you think that, just maybe, the prospect of a collapse would have influenced their thinking. Given that they were the ones blowing the building(s) up, and all.

Do you ever think before you post, even just a little bit?

Do you ever read before you post?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I believe "pulling" a building over (i.e. attaching cables to it for the express purpose of using said cables to literally pull the building down) has only ever been done on buildings that are ten stories or less. We're talking about a 47 story building here; the type of pulling usually referred to in demolition circles (i.e. the cables again) would not be used to demolish WTC7.

I was pointing out that a building can fall without tons of explosives. I thought you believed three buildings fell on 9/11 without any explosives used?