Why was WTC7 brought down by explosives?

[ICBM]

Let's take a few facts - the WTC was built with the bulk of the support provided through the external frame, rather than using an internal supporting core as is done more commonly these days.

Through that external frame were inserted - at high speeds - 60,000 gallons or so of jet fuel, 60-70 tons of aluminium (an intense fire accelerant above certain temperatures IIRC) and a metaphorical match, inserted in such a way as to damage about 1/8th of the support perimeter.

Now, take a tube (you can try this at home with a bog roll if you like!), see how much weight it can take on its end - it should be quite strong as it has structural inegrity. Now cut a 1/8 circumference slit in the side and see how much weight it can take - much less, right?

As soon as any single floor was weakened enough on any side to fail to take the weight of those above it, it would give, and the impact of its collapse would give the floor below no chance, hence the deck of cards effect we all saw to our horror.

If this were true then the towers should have fell almost immediately upon impact, insted its took over an hour for each tower the collapse. Can you please explain why?

 

[bigfatron]

If this were true then the towers should have fell almost immediately upon impact, insted its took over an hour for each tower the collapse. Can you please explain why?

the collapse would come about through a combination of the removal of a section of support (instantaneous) and the weakening of remaining supports through high temperature fire damage (gradual). How long it would take (10 minutes, an hour, ten hours?) would require an expert with a lot of detailed analysis to even make an informed guess.

The fact that the tower which was hit higher up took longer to collapse supports this contention, as it would have had less pressure on the damaged section and therefore taken longer for the heat damage to weaken the supports enough to engender a collapse.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

ahhhhh

No wonder I had thought that the Towers were supported by the core collumn. I had missed entirely it was a tube designed building.I had thought the central collumn being much thicker. But they were fewer then the outer ring of steel.

WOW 1300 Ton design redundency.

--------------

Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission

Michael Baden, M.D., New York state’s chief forensic pathologist and a top expert in the field, said most bodies should be identifiable because the fires had not reached the 3,200 degree (F), 30-minute level necessary to incinerate a body. “Recovered tissues will likely be identified,” Baden said, because “bodies are not cremated—or burnt beyond the ability to be identified—in the type of fire that occurred at the World Trade Center.”

The East German physicist told AFP, “From my experience as a physicist and research scientist with the GRU [Russia’s equivalent to the CIA] I have enough experience to judge that the WTC towers have been burning too quickly, too hot, and too completely to have been caused by the kerosene [jet fuel] fires that resulted from the crashes. Furthermore, the demolished buildings nearby [the 47-story Salomon Bros. Building] are an indication that there was a plasmoid cloud involved, which probably affected the buildings nearby.”

The plate was not destroyed suddenly as if hit by a bullet, rather it disintegrated in a process taking about 15 minutes.”

With so many conflicting theories on why the WTC collapsed no wonder people are confused as hell. Each theory contradicts each other on differing points.

What most people found confunding is actions that appear to be cover up.

A respected professional magazine read by firefighters and engineers is calling the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Towers a farce and a sham.

The steel from the site must be preserved to allow investigators to determine what caused the collapse, Manning said. “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”

Nowhere in the national standard for fire investigation does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall, Manning said. “Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident’s magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully-resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. The lessons about the buildings’ design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

Engineers have also complained that they have been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions

Too many unanswered question here for my liking



[/QUOTE]

 

[cgannon64]

Someone should have seen the demolition trucks driving to the scene. If not the people feeing the scene then firemen, but someone would have seen them. And if thats all that happen that happend why is the official story that fire burned it down?

But it would have been empty.

See, if a civilian had seen the demolition truck, they would've said, "Hey, what is that doing here?" But all the civlians were gone within probably an hour after the towers collapsed.

Now, firefighters and policemen would have seen the truck and said, "Hey, what is that?"
"We're destroying Building 7 because its too dangerous to stand."
"Alright."

Anyway, I'm not arguing that it didn't burn down - I think it did - just playing devil's advocate and saying that even if it WAS explosives, they didnt' necessarily have to be pre-planned.

EDIT:

Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission

That was the biggest plane in 1970.

Its 31 years later, planes are alot bigger. It got hit by a 777, I think.

EDIT: Also, when they designed it to be hit, they assumed the plane would be low on fuel and lost in fog, thus going slowly. Not going full speed and filled with jet fuel.

 

[ICBM]

But it would have been empty.

See, if a civilian had seen the demolition truck, they would've said, "Hey, what is that doing here?" But all the civlians were gone within probably an hour after the towers collapsed.

Now, firefighters and policemen would have seen the truck and said, "Hey, what is that?"
"We're destroying Building 7 because its too dangerous to stand."
"Alright."

Those are two conflicting statments. How could the area been completely evactuated but yet the building is 'dangerous' to stand.

I have provied evidence that shows that fire does not cause steel supertructers to collapse and that even if fire did case them to collapse, that could not have been the case here. It is impossible. Yet people still cling to the idea of the fire because that is the official story and they do not want to entertain any other ideas.

There are some important questions that people should be curious about. People are perfectly happy complaining at a trivial level, but when we reach matters that are 'illusion breaking', no one wants to entertain the idea for a second.

That was the biggest plane in 1970.

Its 31 years later, planes are alot bigger. It got hit by a 777, I think.

It was 767s that hit the towers.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 can carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 can carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

As you can see there is not a huge difference between the two aircraft.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

 

[Bamspeedy]

Those are two conflicting statments. How could the area been completely evactuated but yet the building is 'dangerous' to stand.

Not to me it isn't. It is clear to me that he meant 'evacuated of civilians'.

Someone should have seen the demolition trucks driving to the scene. If not the people feeing the scene then firemen, but someone would have seen them. And if thats all that happen that happend why is the official story that fire burned it down?

Just how much explosives are needed? Do you think a truck will be brightly marked "EXPLOSIVES, INC.".

I have provied evidence that shows that fire does not cause steel supertructers to collapse and that even if fire did case them to collapse, that could not have been the case here. It is impossible.

You have proved nothing, other than it has not happened before. In all of the fires that you offer for comparison, none contained the amount of jet fuel that was involved in 9/11. For your no-window-breaking 'proof' of fire not getting high enough, that could be explained in several ways. The floors on the WTC were HUGE, so there would be a large distance between the center of the floor and the windows. Could not the fire be hot enough in the middle, but not as hot near the windows?

Why don't you get your dad to give an example of a modern steel superstructure collapsing due to nothing else but fire.

Kind of hard when no other superstructure had a fire that involved this amount of jet fuel.

Yet people still cling to the idea of the fire because that is the official story and they do not want to entertain any other ideas.

I never see you entertain the idea of accepting anything other than 'conspiracy involved'. Please, tell me that there is at least 1 thing the government has said or a major event (besides natural events like earthquakes) that has happened, that you feel there was no conspiracy involved.

There are some important questions that people should be curious about. People are perfectly happy complaining at a trivial level, but when we reach matters that are 'illusion breaking', no one wants to entertain the idea for a second.

There has been plenty of people in this thread that has given your material enough attention to do some research on their own in order to debate with you. If they really thought you were offering a rediculous argument they would have totally ignored you or just laughed at you.

But I guess, since they didn't come to the same conclusion as you, then they must be the 'ignorant masses'.

How come you haven't answered some of the challenges, counters, and plausible explainations to your argument/material? I have seen plausible explainations to all of your arguments, yet you ignore them and just basically say "I have shown the proof, and anyone who disagrees is blindly following the government"

 

[ICBM]

There has been plenty of people in this thread that has given your material enough attention to do some research on their own in order to debate with you. If they really thought you were offering a rediculous argument they would have totally ignored you or just laughed at you.

I am not denying that. However my point was that people still cling to the belief that fire collaspes steel buildings, however they offer no proof of how they came to that assumtion other than the government told them so.

I didn't mean to imply "the ignorant masses". If that is what I did then I am sorry. I simply was stating that given the government track record of lying, why is their word reason enough not to question the specifics of 9/11. Many people find it very easy to believe that the war in Iraq was a war for oil and corporate profit; why is it a big leap of thought to think there have been lies about 9/11? There have been hundeds of threads on the Iraq war here at CFC, yet almost none about what really happened the day of September 11th 2001. Why? People love to complain, they just don't like issues that hit to close to home; which is why it was so easy for people to be fed the disinformation about the attacks. He'll, that same day Bush goes on TV and reads from the teleprompter that we were attacked because the "hate our freedom". People should have been suspicious from that moment on.

There has not been any proof provided by anyone here that would give reason to believe that a fire could cause a 47 story building to collapse. It was not hit by a plane. There was no jet fuel in Building 7. If someone can come up with an example of fire destorying a steel building, great. But as of right now no one has done that.

I never see you entertain the idea of accepting anything other than 'conspiracy involved'. Please, tell me that there is at least 1 thing the government has said or a major event (besides natural events like earthquakes) that has happened, that you feel there was no conspiracy involved.

I registered in November 2002 and I only have a bit over 200 posts. The reason you don't see my non-conspiratorial theories is because when I choose to post in the Off-Topic forum, it is usually start a conspiracy theory thread that I myself started.

I do believe that the supposed Suddam Hussien in custody is the real Saddam, for example.

For your no-window-breaking 'proof' of fire not getting high enough, that could be explained in several ways. The floors on the WTC were HUGE, so there would be a large distance between the center of the floor and the windows. Could not the fire be hot enough in the middle, but not as hot near the windows?

Kind of hard when no other superstructure had a fire that involved this amount of jet fuel.

Steel melts at 2415 degrees farenheit. Glass breaks at 1292 degrees fahrenheit. Do you think it is possible to have that great a temperature difference on the same floor? And why should the fire be hotter near the middle than near the windows anyway? Also, from what I have read, the maximum temperature that can be reached by a hydrocarbon/jet fuel burn is 1520 degrees fahrenheit; don't forget the dark smoke from both towers means they were oxygen-starved so they probobly weren't at the maximum temperature.

Again, where is this great proof that there was an ultra hot fire in the towers. There isn't any as far as I can see, but if there is I would be glad to see it.

 

[Bamspeedy]

There has not been any proof provided by anyone here that would give reason to believe that a fire could cause a 47 story building to collapse.

Okay good, back to the building that should have been the only focus of this thread.

The firemen had already seen 2 steel buildings collapse due to fire (you can argue that it wasn't the cause, but to them at that point they certainly felt it was the reason because they did not have 3 years to sit in their lazy boy recliner to analyze/debate the data), don't you think they would be worried it would happen again? There was already thousands killed and hundreds of firemen killed, do you think they would be enthusiastic to send dozens more firemen into another burning building, risking their lives to save 0 lives?

Regarding just this building, I have seen 2 very plausible explainations.

1. Marla's point about the mall complex that was underneath all the buildings. So that building collapsed due to that instead of fire and so the FEMA report is inaccurate. Doesn't prove a conspiracy, just that FEMA probably can't honestly tell the difference about the EXACT cause when there was contributing factors.

I do believe the government does sometimes use guesswork that they pass off as fact (like their voice analysis to verify if certain terrorists are who they say they are).

2. I can't remember the poster who mentioned this, but is it not possible that if the collapse was inevitable (from the perspective of those at the scene) and so the building is destroyed with controlled explosives, then the official reason for the collapse would be for the reason that brought them to destroy it? If someone's life-support is disconnected, their cause of death is not listed as 'disconnection from life-support', but it would be listed as disease, car accident, or whatever else brought them to be on life support in the first place.

I simply was stating that given the government track record of lying, why is their word reason enough not to question the specifics of 9/11.

Because historically, they have been more way more truthful than conspiracy theorists. My thoughts are summed up here:

On the other hand, McAdams, the believer, says too many conspiracy theorists flyspeck just one inaccurate piece of the puzzle, then use that error as a basis to dismiss the entire Kennedy investigation.

You are using one inaccurate piece of the puzzle to blame the entire government for staging 9/11.

Do you think it is possible to have that great a temperature difference on the same floor?

• Floor Sizes (2 - 109) 45,000 - 50,000 sq. ft.

Or anywhere from 212 X 212 feet to 223 X 223 feet. Let's say 218 X 218 feet. 72 yards wide and you don't believe there could have been varying temperatures across that large of distance?

Steel melts at 2415 degrees farenheit.

That is to melt the steel. It only needed to get hot enough to weaken the steel.

Heck, I will even use a 'conspiracy-oriented' source to show this.

http://hawaii.indymedia.org/print.php?id=3248

the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength

HALF OF IT'S STRENGTH!!! It loses half of it's strength, yet it should still support the weight as if it's at 100% strength, huh?

Statistics can be twisted in multiple ways to support whatever position you want to show. The conspiracy theorists only emphasize the 'melting' specific, yet blow-off/ignore the temperature required for the weakening of the steel (which is the most important part for a structure, IMO).

 

[taper]

Don't forget that the force of the twin towers hitting the ground gave the same effect as a small earthquake with it's epicenter right there. I don't remember the exact Richter number, but I think it was above 5. Being centered on that block, a 5+ earthquake can do some serious damage to the surrounding structures.

The towers went down because jets loaded with fuel crashed into them. Anybody who doesn't believe that is so lost in space that anything anybody says to them probably won't make a difference.

 

[ICBM]

Building 7

Regarding just this building, I have seen 2 very plausible explainations.

1. Marla's point about the mall complex that was underneath all the buildings.

[The WTC7 collapsed because basements had slumped.]

The ceiling to the basement wasn't supporting the building. If the ceiling falls in, all it does is make a floor that has a high roof.

2. I can't remember the poster who mentioned this, but is it not possible that if the collapse was inevitable (from the perspective of those at the scene) and so the building is destroyed with controlled explosives, then the official reason for the collapse would be for the reason that brought them to destroy it? If someone's life-support is disconnected, their cause of death is not listed as 'disconnection from life-support', but it would be listed as disease, car accident, or whatever else brought them to be on life support in the first place.

You pretty much negate this as a possibility with what you said about the firefighters:

The firemen had already seen 2 steel buildings collapse due to fire, don't you think they would be worried it would happen again? There was already thousands killed and hundreds of firemen killed, do you think they would be enthusiastic to send dozens more firemen into another burning building, risking their lives to save 0 lives?

What makes you think a demolition crew would have been more enthusiastic about going into a fire than firefighters?

Demolishing a building
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Look at the following pictures of the pile of rubble that came from Building 7:

As you can see the pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building.

Clearly a demolition that was planned before September 11th 2001 took place. The argument that it was the fire that caused Building 7 to collapse is impossible. To bring this building down into its footprint required that all 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns be destroyed simultaneously. No combination of rubble impact damage, fires, or fuel tank explosions could have destroyed all columns simultaneously, as required to cause a vertical collapse. Only controlled demolitions have achieved vertical collapses of upright steel structures.

As I have already pointed out in this thread, history provides numerous examples of steel frame high-rise buildings ravaged by severe fires. Never has the fire caused the building to collapse.

Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html

{must pay for above, can be read in full here: http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/07NYTimes7WTCwhy.html }

The Coverup

Here is what the FEMA report says about why Building 7 collapsed:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ... Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

It is important to know that FEMA was entrusted to investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings with a mere $600,000. To put this in perspective, 40 million dollars were spent trying to impeach Bill Clinton. People should demand another, more thorough investigation. However there is a problem:

From Fire Engineering Magazine:
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

For more than three months, [article is from January 4, 2002] structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

What Fire Engineering Magazine says about the FEMA investigation:

You would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history. You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No comprehensive "Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission." No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.

The fact of the matter is that you and I do not know the full story. But is it obvious that there is foul play at hand here I think that people must try and seek the answers to these questions. Of course whenever people try to do this, their ideas are labled as ‘conspiracy theories’ if they are too disturbing.

Why doesn’t the government simply give us all the answers to all the questions we are asking? What are they hiding? There is simply no good reason why the American people should not know the full truth about what happened on September 11th 2001; or any other historical event.

 

[cgannon64]

It was 767s that hit the towers.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 can carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 can carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

As you can see there is not a huge difference between the two aircraft.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Like I said before, they didn't plan it that an aircraft from Boston carrying enough fuel to go to California would hit the buildings. They imagined an aircraft from California coming to JFK or Newark or whatever, getting lost in fog, with almost no fuel, and slowly crashing into the building. Much like that B-52 bomber that hit the Empire State Building.

 

[Chaos_BF1942]

^That is right, I remember watching something on the WTC about how it was build, and they said that

Much like that B-52 bomber that hit the Empire State Building.

It wasn't a B-52 bomber, it happened durring WW2 (IIRC), and we didn't have them back then. I think it was a B-17

 

[Bamspeedy]

In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time.

Doesn't say how much ahead of time, nor how long this process takes. And these procedures are for destroying a building 'by the book'. In a chaotic situation, few things are followed exactly like they are supposed to. And doesn't give you enough 'proof' of this:

Clearly a demolition that was planned before September 11th 2001 took place.

-

As I have already pointed out in this thread, history provides numerous examples of steel frame high-rise buildings ravaged by severe fires. Never has the fire caused the building to collapse.

How about the earthquake effect from the towers collapsing? That may help weaken the structure, shouldn't it? There is a first time for everything.

The fact of the matter is that you and I do not know the full story.

I agree with this. Does it give people the right to accuse the government and Mr. Silverstein of plotting 9/11, though?

Tell me, for those plotting this thing, what would have been the motivation to demolish building 7?

Back to your first post, you are using the phone call from firefighters to Mr. Silverstein to try and show there was already explosives in the building. So, are the firefighters in on it, too, since they knew about the explosives?

But is it obvious that there is foul play at hand here

Only to those who have a natural distrust towards the government and want to blame them for everything and will accept any minor details that support their opinion.

their ideas are labled as ‘conspiracy theories’ if they are too disturbing.

Let me tell you why there is a difference between between accusing the government of plotting 9/11, and the Iraq war (oil being the real reason, as people say).

To declare war on Iraq and come up with reasons for it (WMD) did not require that much of a conspiracy. You only needed a few individuals in the top of the administration to decide that a war was what they wanted and a few (possibly bogus) intelligence reports to justify it.

For 9/11 to be a government project, there would have been hundreds or thousands of people involved. If Bush and Co. were behind it, he would have had what, 8 months? I heard many in his administration weren't actually in their positions until 2 months before 9/11.

Why doesn’t the government simply give us all the answers to all the questions we are asking? What are they hiding?

There are some good questions when asked from a legitimate source (like the firefighters association). But the government should not waste their time with the kooks.

I'll leave with this quote from http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/index.htm

*Ring Ring* Hello, this is Neil Armstrong. I will be remembered centuries from now as one of the most famous persons in the history of mankind, ever. Who's calling, please?

Hi, I'm Bill Kaysing. I'm a total nobody who has made a short-term name for himself by calling you a fraud and a liar. Could you make me seem important by giving me five minutes of your time? I hope that the tiniest fraction of your fame might rub off on me.

*Click. Brrrrrr*

Gee, I wonder why he hung up? What's he hiding?

 

[ICBM]

Doesn't say how much ahead of time, nor how long this process takes. And these procedures are for destroying a building 'by the book'. In a chaotic situation, few things are followed exactly like they are supposed to.

Correct, in a chaotic situation, few things are work exactly like they are supposed to. One of these things is human behavior. In chaotic situations people rarely preform as well as they do under normal circumstances, let alone better.

The most likely conclusion is that the demolition crew would not be able to do all of the above; especially touring the building several times while it was on fire. To believe otherwise is simply a "coincidence theory", the idea that something worked out perfectly, for the first time ever, with nothing to back it up other than the argument that "there is a first time for everything". This is no more absurd than many of the conspiracy theories that you are so against.

Tell me, for those plotting this thing, what would have been the motivation to demolish building 7?

As you know, the general "conspiracy theory" is that the CIA carried out 9/11; Building 7 was the base where the operation was conducted. This article from the New York Times explaines why the theory started:

The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America's spy agency, government officials say.

The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said.

The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building.

Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports that had been stored in the New York station, either on paper or in computers, officials said. It could not be learned whether the agency was successful in retrieving its classified records from the wreckage.

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.

The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas.

But United States intelligence officials emphasize that there is no evidence that the hijackers knew that the undercover station was in the World Trade Center complex.

The agency is prohibited from conducting domestic espionage operations against Americans, but the agency maintains stations in a number of major United States cities, where C.I.A. case officers try to meet and recruit students and other foreigners to return to their countries and spy for the United States. The New York station, which has been led by its first female station chief for the last year, is believed to have been the largest and most important C.I.A. domestic station outside the Washington area.

The station has for years played an important role in espionage operations against Russian intelligence officers, many of whom work undercover as diplomats at the United Nations. Agency officers in New York often work with the F.B.I. to recruit and then help manage foreign agents spying for the United States. The bureau's New York office, at 26 Federal Plaza, was unaffected by the terrorist attack. -New York Times (11/04/01)

Back to your first post, you are using the phone call from firefighters to Mr. Silverstein to try and show there was already explosives in the building. So, are the firefighters in on it, too, since they knew about the explosives?

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the [WTC 7] building collapse" -Larry Silverstein

The fire department commander said he didn't think they could contain the fire. You yourself have already provided an answer to your question: "the firemen had already seen two steel buildings collapse due to fire (you can argue that it wasn't the cause, but to them at that point they certainly felt it was the reason because they did not have 3 years to sit in their lazy boy recliner to analyze/debate the data), don't you think they would be worried it would happen again?" There is is no reason to think the individual fire-fighters were in on it.

Let me tell you why there is a difference between between accusing the government of plotting 9/11, and the Iraq war (oil being the real reason, as people say).

To declare war on Iraq and come up with reasons for it (WMD) did not require that much of a conspiracy. You only needed a few individuals in the top of the administration to decide that a war was what they wanted and a few (possibly bogus) intelligence reports to justify it.

For 9/11 to be a government project, there would have been hundreds or thousands of people involved. If Bush and Co. were behind it, he would have had what, 8 months? I heard many in his administration weren't actually in their positions until 2 months before 9/11.

Why would it encompass hundreds or thousands of people? The only people that would have been activly involed are Silverstein, the demolition crew, a few individuals at the top of the government (like with Iraq), and the CIA agents involved.

Most people do as they are told and never ask questions. Just think about the topic we are discussing; how many water-cooler conversations do you think occur about why did Building 7 collapsed? Not too many I would guess. How often to you think fire-fighters discuss if there is any point in risking their lives doing their jobs if fire can [supposedly] demolish a steel super-structure so efforlessly and effciantly? Again, I wouldn't guess too many. But that does not mean that those questions are not vaild, or that they should not be given legitimate answers.

 

[Perfection]

@ICBM, The towers did survive the impact of the planes, it was the fire weakening the steel that destroyed it, so basing it on that is crap.

As for WTC7 let's see a little bit more evidence other then some incompotent structural guesswork and about the crappiest news sources available.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.starseedtv.com/index.html

I think this little fella says it best --->

 

[ICBM]

@ICBM, The towers did survive the impact of the planes, it was the fire weakening the steel that destroyed it, so basing it on that is crap.

As for WTC7 let's see a little bit more evidence other then some incompotent structural guesswork and about the crappiest news sources available.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.starseedtv.com/index.html

I think this little fella says it best --->

The prisonplanet/starseedtv are just for the videos. Do a google search if you want another source.

I know you didn't read this whole thread, so please do before you comment.

 

[Perfection]

The prisonplanet/starseedtv are just for the videos. Do a google search if you want another source.

I must not be that god of a goggler

I know you didn't read this whole thread, so please do before you comment.

I did read the whole thing, you make numerous mistakes over and over such as saying the steel must have melted when everyone knows that it was the weakening structure

Your New York Times article says nothing of a coverup and states that there was a likely cause for the problem, the big fuel tanks in it.

I will admit that my browser didn't like your Fire Engineering dealy and I didn't read it.

Lastly weather or not the WTC7 was "pulled" doesn't make the rest of the disaster a coverup!

 

[ICBM]

I must not be that god of a goggler

I did read the whole thing, you make numerous mistakes over and over such as saying the steel must have melted when everyone knows that it was the weakening structure

Your New York Times article says nothing of a coverup and states that there was a likely cause for the problem, the big fuel tanks in it.

I will admit that my browser didn't like your Fire Engineering dealy and I didn't read it.

Lastly weather or not the WTC7 was "pulled" doesn't make the rest of the disaster a coverup!

Of course the NY Times isn't going to say anything of a cover-up. You read the article, so you saw how politically-conscience it was. The point of posting that was to show that fire never cause a steel superstructure like building 7 to collapse. Some have said they doubted that claim, so I posted a reference.

The Fire Engineering quotes I posted state that the evidence was sold to China as scrap and that the "investigation" was bogus. And to accept that weakening caused it to collapse is ignoring all the other examples of more serious and longer burning fires that didn't casued their buildings to collapse. Not to mention all the evidence of a controlled demolition, such as the pile of rubble almost entirely within the footprint of the former building. I quoted a credible, non-political site as saying "this feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it."

Edit: Forgot to respond to a point you made.

No, it doesn't prove a total cover-up. But if you accept the fact that there was a cover-up involving Building 7 , it should make you more curious about what else you've been lied to. However, most people prefer to believe their leaders are honsest and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it.

Edit 2:

By the way, to those who say the towers collapsed due to the "deck of cards effect", can you please explain how the towers fell if the deck of cards effect didn't happen; as evident in this picture from the bbc of the South Tower collapsing clearly showing that the top of the building tipping over:

 

[shammy]

Doesn't it make sense it leans towards the weakened section of the building?

I've been reading this thread for a while and Im almost afraid to ask why you brought up the wtc main towers collapse. Are you suggesting they were controlled demolitions?

 

[Bamspeedy]

as well as they do under normal circumstances, let alone better

Can you honestly say that the 'controlled demolition' was any better than average? It obviously wasn't a failure.

especially touring the building several times while it was on fire.

They wouldn't need to tour it if they had blueprints for it, would they?

But if you accept the fact that there was a cover-up involving Building 7

I accept the fact that it could have been a controlled demolition. HOWEVER I see no evidence that it was planned before 9/11. They pulled it because they felt it was going to collapse anyways, so what brought them to feel that way is what is the official reason for the collapse. How hard is that to grasp?

is believed to have been the largest and most important C.I.A. domestic station outside the Washington area.

Emphasis mine.

There is is no reason to think the individual fire-fighters were in on it.

Well, if the explosives were already in the building like you want to insinuate, then did Silverstein at that time tell them about the explosives? Wouldn't they be surprised by that, but not say anything (cover-up)? Or did they already know they were there (in on it)? Or maybe the explosives were brought in later.

Silverstein: "....pull it"

Fire Chief: "Ok, we'll get some explosives"

Silverstein: "Oh, don't worry, there is already some there".

Fire Chief: "Huh?"

Why would it encompass hundreds or thousands of people? The only people that would have been activly involed are Silverstein, the demolition crew, a few individuals at the top of the government (like with Iraq), and the CIA agents involved.

So did the CIA agents pilot the planes and commit suicide? Do you believe it was Arabs piloting the planes or not? Because if you deny that, then the number of people involved would be great (witnesses to the flight schools, seeing them boarding the planes, those on the planes who made calls to their family and mentioned arabs had hijacked the plane, the witnesses against the 20th hijacker Mousaoi-yeah I spelled that wrong, the terrorists around the world who have been captured and gave information they knew about the planning and financing of 9/11, Osama and Al Quedea for taking sole credit, etc., etc.)

However, most people prefer to believe their leaders are honsest and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it.

However, some people prefer to believe their conspiracy theorists are honsest and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a reader of conspiracy theories acknowledges that the conspiracy theorist they follow has ever told one part of a truth, then everything else he says must be the entire truth.