WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.

jomper

Inactive Member
NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
NIST found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event because NIST had no evidence to examine, as noted above. This is hilarious circular logic from the investigating authority, but that it should be seriously presented and then repeated as proof of anything is nothing short of tragic.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
You are upset that the shooting victim of an armed robbery was not tested of arsenic poisoning because you think his wife was poisoning him. The basis for your reasoning is that she had had an affair and once when she found that he had left the seat belt hanging out in the rain, she had exclaimed 'I could kill him'.

You have not answered my questions successfully.
1) You came up a story that they were planted over a long period of time---that lacks reason--it would have been too easy for someone to accidentally find them--Fail
2) you refer to a classified explosive, without explaining how YOU know about something that is classified --Fail
3) they hired someone---not even a start of a story here---there is not a lot of folks trained in controlled demolition of tall buildings, that is not even a skill learned in the military. Fail

Still no way to plant them, no way for them to survive the fires and no one to plan and to plant them.


Yes the clean up was urgent, there were human remains in the rubble pile of the WTC 1 & 2. Other buildings nearby were damaged and needed to be demolished. Folks needed room to work. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances in an investigation. One that is frequently encountered in corner's offices, is the need to get the bodies of some religions, examined and back to the family within 24 hours.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
They had no reason to investigate evidence supporting a blast event. Logical deduction alone provided that.
They chose to devote their time to less futile avenues of investigation.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Again you speak as if the video evidence is irrelevant or does not exist. It does and it is more than enough in and of itself to suggest accelerants should have been tested for.

Cairenn: you are confusing my remarks with those of other people, but that is what you do.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
They had no reason to investigate evidence supporting a blast event. Logical deduction alone provided that.
They chose to devote their time to less futile avenues of investigation.

N-building.jpg


Frankly I'm getting a little fed up with authorities not exploring every avenue when investigating disasters. The establishment's lack of thoroughness in the building seven collapse investigation is certainly not unprecedented. Last year several buildings were destroyed in Nigeria. None of them were ever tested for explosives. In fact some claim the Nigerian government actively resisted investigating alternate theories.


N_GJ.jpg


Asked why his government did not test for explosives, Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan was quoted as saying, "Look man, I told you guys, a F*@!^$% plane hit the buildings."


N_crane.jpg


Although there is some circumstantial evidence that a plane may have been involved in the destruction of one of the buildings, several surrounding structures that were not directly impacted by the alleged plane crash also suffered catastrophic damage. Concerns and suspicion arose when citizens realized that the destruction of these surrounding building was not thoroughly investigated. Many became even more alarmed when they realized that all the evidence was quickly removed making any future investigations into alternate theories impossible.
 

hiper

Active Member
They had no reason to investigate evidence supporting a blast event. Logical deduction alone provided that.
They chose to devote their time to less futile avenues of investigation.
Every scientist on the planet knows NIST not officially investigating the WTC dust to be indicative of a cover-up.



Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence
that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up.
Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason
they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?

Zogby 2006 :

nationalzogbypoll_small2.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Would anyone like to comment about the cars in this video?
They do seem a bit incongruous to me... can't really put my finger on why... just a feeling.

What I find very noticeable is the attention given to them, (the reporter obviously felt they were remarkable and interesting), but more than that, they are at the WTC 7 less than an hour before it falls and there is very little fire. In fact there is so little of major interest there, they concentrate a lot on the cars and surroundings. No filming of bulges... very relaxed... no creaking and groaning of the building.

And yet 10 mins later the reporter, (Vince Dementri), states they were there and the building was about to collapse and had been cordoned off.



Obviously no need to check for explosives though... the reporter, only mentions explosives and demolition about 10 times (from about 7 minutes in) ... not to mention anthrax etc



At around 6.40 you can see wtc 6 burning much more violently and that did not collapse.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Pretty strong fires in that video.
Yes but they were localised and exactly the same footage as per the previous video which showed they were localised and that the vast majority of the building was not alight. It also shows, (in previous), that there were a number of areas which had burned out. Shows the power of editing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, the hole created by fire, the one that caused the building to lean, caused this part of the collapse. So this is the only part of the collapse that can be attributed to fire.
And the bits of WTC7 that hit 30 West Broadway? Was the roof of 30 West Broadway in the "footprint" of WTC7?





Are you really suggesting that the building was damaged by fire so much that it was leaning, so they ran in there and rigged a few charges to bring it down, for no good reason?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes but they were localised and exactly the same footage as per the previous video which showed they were localised and that the vast majority of the building was not alight. It also shows, (in previous), that there were a number of areas which had burned out. Shows the power of editing.
Did you read the NCSTAR 1-9 analysis of the location and extent of the fires? Did you find anything wrong with it?
 

hiper

Active Member
Look Mick with all due respect but you're not going to talk yourself out of this one...

There are many witnesses including firemen who have heard 'heavy duty' explosions & 'secondary' explosions going off.
If only airplanes were involved there is no reason for these explosions to have been there.
Couple this with NIST not testing for explosives or accelerants and one is simply left with criminal investigatory behaviour and an event that smells to high heaven.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Look Mick with all due respect but you're not going to talk yourself out of this one...

There are many witnesses including firemen who have heard 'heavy duty' explosions & 'secondary' explosions going off.
If only airplanes were involved there is no reason for these explosions to have been there.
Couple this with NIST not testing for explosives or accelerants and one is simply left with criminal investigatory behaviour.
I'm not trying to talk my self out of anything. I'm trying to use science and the available evidence to figure out what most likely happened.

I'm going to Move Oxy's post above to a new thread, as it sounds like an interesting thing to drill down into, what with there being numbers and suchlike:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1552-WTC7-Did-the-fires-burn-long-and-hot-enough
 
Last edited:

Chuck

Active Member
Look Mick with all due respect but you're not going to talk yourself out of this one...

There are many witnesses including firemen who have heard 'heavy duty' explosions & 'secondary' explosions going off.
If only airplanes were involved there is no reason for these explosions to have been there.
Couple this with NIST not testing for explosives or accelerants and one is simply left with criminal investigatory behaviour and an event that smells to high heaven.
Did you bother watching the video posted that gave reasonable explanations as to the cause of the explosions? No one is denying there weren't loud noises, but to characterize them as detonations consistent with building demolition, is simply not supported by the evidence. Watch the video and tell me that you hear anything even remotely similar like that of the plethora of controlled demolitions shown in this video.

[video=vimeo;65357946]http://vimeo.com/65357946[/video]

In an article found HERE is the following quote:

The most common conspiracist misuse of eyewitness accounts involves descriptions of loud noises in and around the Twin Towers. "Controlled demolition" theorists claim that such descriptions indicate that explosive devices were at work in the towers, even, for some unfathomable reason, long before the collapses. To them, all descriptions are literal and figures of speech don't exist. When Hursley Lever, who was in the north tower basement when flight 11 hit, said "I heard a bomb," but then explained that he thought the noise was a transformer explosion and went back to work, conspiracists will focus on "bomb" and omit the rest.
I originally embraced the CD theory until I realized that in NONE of the internet videos, most of which were from handheld camcorders, even gave a hint of the kinds of concussions that would have been heard from a CD. I just don't understand why it's continually argued that the various explosions were the result of a CD. You simply cannot divorce the sound from equation. The explosions were far too random and not close to the decibel level consistent with a CD.
 

Ron J

Active Member
Demolition explosions are loud. When the South Tower collapsed, the audio of the collapse was recorded. There were no demolition explosions prior to the collapse, just the rumble of the elements of the building crashing down upon the rest of the structure that was still standing. The east wall was bowed in at the 81st floor and that was about the level where the collapse began. Close up video of that area as the collapse began, showed no detonations going off. It was a natural collapse.
 

hiper

Active Member
I originally embraced the CD theory until I realized that in NONE of the internet videos, most of which were from
handheld camcorders, even gave a hint of the kinds of concussions that would have been heard from a CD.
I just don't understand why it's continually argued that the various explosions were the result of a CD.
You simply cannot divorce the sound from equation. The explosions were far too random and not close to the decibel level consistent with a CD.
I don't know by what precise means they demolished the 3 buildings
but I do know that 2 planes & fire would not have yielded the same results.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Did you bother watching the video posted that gave reasonable explanations as to the cause of the explosions? No one is denying there weren't loud noises, but to characterize them as detonations consistent with building demolition, is simply not supported by the evidence. Watch the video and tell me that you hear anything even remotely similar like that of the plethora of controlled demolitions shown in this video.

[video=vimeo;65357946]http://vimeo.com/65357946[/video]

In an article found HERE is the following quote:



I originally embraced the CD theory until I realized that in NONE of the internet videos, most of which were from handheld camcorders, even gave a hint of the kinds of concussions that would have been heard from a CD. I just don't understand why it's continually argued that the various explosions were the result of a CD. You simply cannot divorce the sound from equation. The explosions were far too random and not close to the decibel level consistent with a CD.
It's not as if silent demolition technologies don't exist. The question is really whether or not it is acceptable for the official investigation to have failed to have test for accelerants, given the nature of the video evidence or even the bare fact of total collapse. The answer is surely no.
 

Chuck

Active Member
I don't know by what precise means they demolished the 3 buildings
but I do know that 2 planes & fire would not have yielded the same results.
This is a perfect microcosm of the debate and a prime reason productive discussion has ceased. So the bottom line is that there's nothing that can convince you that your presuppositions may be errant? That doesn't give us much to work with.
 

Ron J

Active Member
At around 6.40 you can see wtc 6 burning much more violently and that did not collapse.
At 5.00 i see a lot of heavy black smoke pouring out of WTC7 and near 6.40 i see heavy flames erupting out windows on the east side of WTC7, the end of the building where the collapse originated.

WTC6 was constructed differently than WTC7 and was what, 9 stories tall as opposed to 47? That one did not fall has no bearing on whether the other should have fallen.

There was no need to check for explosives, as WTC7 was a working office building on 9/11 and reason the building was in danger of collapse, was due to debris from WTC1 collapsing down into it, resulting in uncontrolled fires.

With the NYFD expecting WTC7 to collapse, there was no reason to hide a controlled demolition, if one could have been performed that afternoon.
 

Chuck

Active Member
It's not as if silent demolition technologies don't exist. The question is really whether or not it is acceptable for the official investigation to have failed to have test for accelerants, given the nature of the video evidence or even the bare fact of total collapse. The answer is surely no.
As I've already mentioned, I don't claim to have any expertise in CD. However, the "silent demolition" source you referenced, says the following:

A slurry mixture of the non-explosive demolition agent and water is poured into the drill holes. Over the next few hours the slurry expands, cracking the rock in a pattern somewhat like the cracking that would occur from conventional explosives.
What does this have to do with WTC 7? I see no relevance whatsoever. Are you suggesting that all of this was done in the early morning hours prior to 9/11, so as the "slurry" expanded, the concrete began to crack gradually and ultimately brought the building down? What am I missing?

If these are the kind of options to fire, I'll stick with the fire.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Better stick with thermite, that technology you link to would not work for steel.
It's a general point, as I said: the question is really if it is acceptable that the official investigation failed to test for accelerants.
 

Chuck

Active Member
Let's presume 9/11 was an inside job and Larry Silverstein went along for the ride because of the potential insurance windfall. So, after hours, unbeknowst to janitors, office cleaning staff and whomever else would have frequented WTC7 between 1:00am to 5:00am, Silverstein and his demolition demons in the CIA, worked for months to drill, wire and prepare the building for it's 9/11 demise.

larry_silverstein--300x300.jpg

Only one problem. Since the plan didn't included scheduled planes to hit WTC7, how could Silverstein have been guaranteed that fires sufficient to cover up the CD, would have ensued? If WTC1 and WTC2 had truly collapsed in their own footprints, and therefore no falling debris was available to cause the WTC7 fires, how could Silverstein have justified the CD?

So even if WTC7 was fully wired and ready for CD, they'd have had no way of executing it's demolition, short of doing a typical CD when the building was never in distress.

Silverstein had to hope and pray that somehow WTC7 caught fire. Does anyone truly believe this "raining day explosives" theory?

So, let me get this straight. if I really care about the 3,000 who died (I'm told that only conspiratorialists care), I should believe that WTC7 had been primed and readied for demolition, as Silverstein and company HOPED for the conflagration of circumstances i.e. an out-of-control fire that would severely weaken the support structure, necessary to carry out this diabolical CD?

It takes far less faith to believe the most obvious conclusion, that WTC7 was brought down by fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hiper

Active Member
This is a perfect microcosm of the debate and a prime reason productive
discussion has ceased. So the bottom line is that there's nothing that can convince you that
your presuppositions may be errant? That doesn't give us much to work with.
After getting confirmation no airplane hit WTC 7...
After seeing WTC 7 collapsing due to sudden total structural failure...
After NIST refusing on ridiculously unscientific basis to not investigate the WTC dust...
After all the WTC 7 steel was removed before NIST's investigation began...

Yes it would be very difficult to convince me a new official independent investigation is not needed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
After getting confirmation no airplane hit WTC 7...
After seeing WTC 7 collapsing due to sudden total structural failure...
After NIST refusing on ridiculously unscientific basis to not investigate the WTC dust...
After all the WTC 7 steel was removed before NIST's investigation began...

Yes it would be very difficult to convince me a new official independent investigation is not needed.
It's not going to happen though is it?

So why not try convincing people using the available evidence?
 

Chuck

Active Member
It must take great faith to draw conclusions without expecting an analysis of the physical evidence.
Apparently unlike you, I attempt to draw conclusions based upon what is, not what I wish them to be. I will not indict the U.S. Government for this act of barbarism, simply because evidence you believe was germane to the investigation, was eliminated. So, even though you can't present a plausible theory, you reject every other reasonable theory just because you can't examine what no longer exists? That to me is the definition of blind faith.
 

hiper

Active Member
There was no need to check for explosives, as WTC7 was a working office building on 9/11 and
reason the building was in danger of collapse, was due to debris from WTC1 collapsing down into it, resulting in uncontrolled fires.
That's the most unscientific course of action an investigation could take... and exactly the one NIST took.

If these are the kind of options to fire, I'll stick with the fire.
Fire is not used to bring down buidlings in a controlled fasion.
Nano-thermate is an incendiary with explosive characteristics not similar to unequivocal high velocity of detonation explosives like C4.

and therefore no falling debris was available to cause the WTC7 fires, how could Silverstein have justified the CD?
Silverstein had to hope and pray that somehow WTC7 caught fire.
If one is wiring a building for demolition how hard would it be to start a fire.

It takes far less faith to believe the most obvious conclusion, that WTC7 was brought down by fire.
To believe WTC 7 collapsed like it did only due to fire I would need many buckets of faith.

It's not going to happen though is it?
Well that's convenient for you guys isn't it?

So why not try convincing people using the available evidence?
The buildings collapsed and the evidence was either not investigated or carted away again very convenient.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Apparently unlike you, I attempt to draw conclusions based upon what is, not what I wish them to be. I will not indict the U.S. Government for this act of barbarism, simply because evidence you believe was germane to the investigation, was eliminated. So, even though you can't present a plausible theory, you reject every other reasonable theory just because you can't examine what no longer exists? That to me is the definition of blind faith.
It's nothing like that. The only conclusion to be drawn from the investigation is that it ignored its responsibilities in very simple ways: as we have now discussed ad nauseum a reasonable person would reasonably expect forensic tests for accelerants, based on the video evidence.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Nano-thermate is an incendiary with explosive characteristics not similar to unequivocal high velocity of detonation explosives like C4.
So it would make a very loud bang then?



Well that's convenient for you guys isn't it?



The buildings collapsed and the evidence was either not investigated or carted away again very convenient.

No, it's very inconvenient. Because it gives the promoters of bunk an "out". I can debunk all I like and they always just fall back on "... well, the investigation was not good enough, so that proves nothing"
 

Chuck

Active Member
That's the most unscientific course of action an investigation could take... and exactly the one NIST took.



Fire is not used to bring down buidlings in a controlled fasion.
Nano-thermate is an incendiary with explosive characteristics not similar to unequivocal high velocity of detonation explosives like C4.





If one is wiring a building for demolition how hard would it be to start a fire.



To believe WTC 7 collapsed like it did only due to fire I would need many buckets of faith.



Well that's convenient for you guys isn't it?



The buildings collapsed and the evidence was either not investigated or carted away again very convenient.
As I said, this is the epitome of blind faith. And it is not "convenient" for anyone. Cheers.
 

hiper

Active Member
Apparently unlike you, I attempt to draw conclusions based upon what is, not what I wish them to be.
Really? Let's see what have we got that 'is'...

Never has a steel high rise totally collapsed like a controlled demolition only due to fire...

NIST ignoring scientifically investigating key evidence...

WTC 7 steel being carted away before any investigation could be done upon it...


And upon these facts you base your conclusion that all is well with the official explanation.
Looks to me if you want a scientific investigation you will have to wish for it because NIST's wasn't it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Really? Let's see what have we got that 'is'...

Never has a steel high rise totally collapsed due to fire like a controlled demolition only due to fire...

NIST ignoring scientifically investigating key evidence...

WTC 7 steel being carted away before any investigation could be done upon it...


And upon these facts you base your conclusion that all is well with the official explanation.
Looks to me if you want a scientific investigation you will have to wish for it because NIST's wasn't it.
We need to start playing truther bingo.



Serious hiper, these points have already been addressed. Why keep bringing them up again?
 
Last edited:

hiper

Active Member
We need to start playing truther bingo.

Serious hiper, these points have already been addressed. Why keep bringing them up again?
You are asking me why I keep bringing up evidence of NIST's criminal investigatory behavior... should I stop and pretend all is well?
I keep bringing them up because NIST's investigation was not scientific.

If an investigation is not scientific how can one trust the conclusions based on that same investigation.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You are asking me why I keep bringing up evidence of NIST's criminal investigatory behavior...
No. I'm suggesting you should know what the answers are by now. All you are doing now is shouting the exact same thing over and over, even though people had addressed your questions.

Our answers to the same question are not going to change. Try some new questions, or present some new evidence.
 

hiper

Active Member
Our answers to the same question are not going to change.
So I guess I'll have to get by with "no audible evidence of a blast event" and "the steel could not be investigated because it was gone".

If you want to stand by these answers and say their sufficiently scientific that's your choice but don't blame me for attacking such an easy prey.


Try some new questions, or present some new evidence.

New questions? that's a good one... If NIST would come out of hiding maybe the real conversation could continue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
Mick West Collapse of 12 Story Building in Miami Beach Current Events 3
Miss VocalCord São Paulo High Rise Fire and Collapse - Wilton Paes de Almeida Building Current Events 87
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Leifer Bent Steel In Building Fires Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West Explained: Two Suns at Sunset - Harrow, UK [Reflection Off Building] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
NoParty Claim: Indigogo campaign to recreate 9/11 Plane Crash into Building 9/11 38
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
jomper WTC 7 (Building 7) General Discussion 0
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
Grieves BBC's Jane Standley Premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 (Building 7) 9/11 13
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
Mick West Building 7 Explained by Edward Current 9/11 2

Related Articles

Top