World Trade Center Building 7 - controlled demolition

In the absence of any conspiracy theorists (here) filling in the blanks i'm gonna "do the math" as they apparently like to say.

Prince Charles + outspoken views on modern architecture + gratitude for US forces bumping off Di + explosives for a Metallica video shoot - James Hetfield in Rehab = No show by the band for the final 'explosive' minute of the MTV video to 'I Disappear'. Next conspiracy please....

Some of you would benefit greatly from reading "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Noam Chomsky and Edward S Herman.

Only then will you realize how you have been hoodwinked by the mainstream media, including your beloved BBC.

BBM

..and you might like to read my posts which have asked the simple question, "why?" The only conspiracy here seems to be one of silence to a simple direct question.

Indeed. How and who would be nice too.

I'm all ears, suitably chastised for apparently being hoodwinked by the BBC I am ready for conversion with a plausible coherent alternate narrative, rather than just a set of apparent (disputed) inconsistencies. Any alternate theory needs to stitch together the whole story not just point at details of course. 

Bruce

Quite right.

A BBC cock-up is just a cock-up until compelling evidence is shown of a real alternative explanation.

Why would anyone demolish WTC 7? What ever motive could there be for it, and who would have that motive? It is hardly likely to win friends or gain influence! Regardless of the impossibility of actually  managing such a demolition without it being noticed beforehand ... even in the hours that elapsed from the initial terrorist attack on the Twin Towers to the collapse of WTC 7 ... a period that could not possibly have allowed for the correct explosives and system to set them off!

ATB from George

Buildings don't collapse in on themselves due to fire. And buildings certainly don't collapse in on themselves for no reason (building 7). This is the basis for my doubts about official the official story, never mind all the odd reporting regarding the fate of building 7 before the collapse even occurred.

As for the how and the who... I have no clue, but I do have my suspicions. Who had the most to gain? Follow the money.

That will not do at all. You need to name names and explain how they could possibly gain from it.

Any less is just stirring the puddle with a stick - muddying the waters as it were rather than clarifying anything at all.

ATB from George

Hi George... I do enjoy reading your posts and think your speakers are very cool. And I appreciate your love for all things DAC V1. But I disagree with you on this point. I don't need to clarify anything, because there is really nothing to clarify, and because I don't have the answers.

I have doubts, to which I am entitled. I think the official story stinks, and I think there was a lot more to what happened then will ever be made public. I'm just leaving it there. As for who benefitted.... google it... you'll get reams of pages that would dwarf any reply I could provide.

And I won't participate in any more discussion on this thread. It's really not a subject that I am terribly passionate about.... I only threw my 2 cents in as I was surprised to see it mentioned on this board of all places.

The funny thing is that there are many things in life that perfectly rational people hold doubts about, but without some evidence they remain doubts. 

The building should not have collapsed from a fire, but it collapsed. Why? 

Was it well enough built? Many buildings are not built to specification and stand till some disaster finds a weakness in construction. 

Was the building weakened by the short range shaking of the collapse if the Twin Towers? Did something heavy land on it? Was the design faulty, even if it was perfectly compliant to the regulations of building? For example the Titanic was perfectly compliant with the regulations in force at the time ...

Lots of questions and no answers for certain, but the bald fact is that WTC 7 collapsed for whatever reason.

To construct a theory that it was demolished in controlled fashion even it that were possible in the roughly twelve hour period concerned [and it isn't] would have to name names and make clear the motive of gain for the perpetrators. 

Occam's Razor is a very useful tool in the absence of evidence to disprove Occam's simplest solution that can be made from the evidence available, even if this evidence is pock-marked with early failures of human endeavour such as the BBC reporting of the collapse before the event. 

The simplest solution is that a fire broke out, and for whatever reason it collapsed even though it should not have done ... The real explanation - that might well have been covered up - is inadequate design or construction. Stranger things have happened. Clearly the building did not actually live up to expectations ...

ATB from George

 ''Buildings don't collapse in on themselves due to fire''.

Actually, yes, they will, and do.

Yes, buildings of that nature have fire protection, but it is not unlimited, and is usually measured in time - ie 1/2 hour, 1 hour etc.

During this time it is hoped that some measures will have been taken to control said fire and not allow it to destroy the load bearing structure within the fire protection. The heat of that fire would have been very intense, and the fire dept were understandably busy at the time.

Concrete crumbles to dust at that heat, and should you add water it dissolves to nowt.

Any steel within the concrete would be severely weakened by the heat also.

With the amount of weight above only one possible thing can happen.

How do you think they do bring down tower blocks under controlled conditions?

Oh yes, they remove the load bearing structures such as the concrete and steel supports.

Now IF they tried to remove all that load bearing structure with a single blast the explosion would be simply massive and very obvious. It takes hundreds / thousands of small amounts to do it correctly - ie take out an entire floor at once causing the above structure to fall in on itself - but you already know that. To say that a fire cannot do that is simply incorrect. I suppose it was not the fires that managed to bring down the twin towers either in your head?

 Ok... you sucked me back in to this.

3 Buildings collapse in an identical manner, and in a manner inconsistent to what would be expected based on the phenomenon they were exposed to. Not just a kind of similar manner... an identical manner. And one of those buildings wasn't even hit by an aircraft.

That's enough for me to call bullish%t. Sorry. It just is.

And you really can't connect any dots as to whom could have possibly benefitted from the events of 9/11. Really? 

If I were minded to I could guess very badly about who might benefit from a cover-up of the real reasons why ...

As the whole development was more or less concurrent, I am inclined to think there was something quite wrong with the design and construction of the buildings.

A simple answer that could easily be shown as wrong in the face of real evidence.

One thing that is completely absent from the ideas of the conspiracy theorists is an ability to show a more compelling reason why such a three building catastrophe should have occurred.

And if there is a cover up [which is possible] we may well never know, so I'll stick to the simplest explanation. 

ATB from George

So the US Government did it!

I disliked Bush immensely, but I don't believe - in the face of no compelling evidence to the contrary - that the US Government enacted such a plan. If it did then the US system of Government is totally evil. I may not like it, but I don't believe that is the case.

ATB from George

Dear Char,

Whatever I might see Mr Bush as, I certainly don't see him as a possible member of any self-promoting group of übermensch.

ATB from George

LOL... I actually don't think the U.S. Government did it... I'd point more towards the Military Industrial Complex.

I'm Canadian... it's in our blood to think that government is well intentioned... which is in fact, generally speaking a belief I hold. That view however does get harder to stand by when you watch the circus that is the US political system on display daily.

And I would second George's statement that if (and I acknowledge that it is an "if") the official story of the events of 9-11 isn't correct... that we will most certainly never know what did actually transpire.

Please read this link on Wiki which for me answers a lot of questions as I am reading a lot of gibberish accusations in this thread. This is more believable than the Conspiracy Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

George, Bruce,

First, I don't accept the conspiracy theory that started this thread. I made that clear in my posts above.

However, suggesting that the explosive charges needed to demolish Bldg 7 were placed after the start of events on 9/11 isn't part of most conspiracy theories that I have looked at. The suggestion is that explosive charges were placed before 9/11 as part of an overall plot by persons unknown.

We had this discussion about a year ago. I'm not aware of any new evidence that would cause people to change their views.

Whatever else I may be - some people think that I am honest to the point of being a fool - I am never disingenuous. I'd have to remember what my dissembling had been when caught by surprise!

I cannot rely on being quick enough to remember soon enough! So I avoid it. Call a spade a spade, and let the truth shame the Devil ...

ATB from George

I always thought that Football was rigged, just like wrestling!

Or else Rooney would not be in our team!

ATB from George

Has Rooney ever constructed a properly formed question? That IS a real question. He has been reported to speak, but not coherently ...

ATB from George

Ha!!! Ha!!! I love irony.

"I value the privilege of sitting beside you very highly, for I have no doubt that you will fill me with an ample draught of the finest wisdom."

Socrates.

Well, this has been an interesting thread, and I don't even mind being ridiculed, laughed at, or what have you. I am well aware that "you can't push a chain", and I also know that I could spend a great amount of time and effort and get nowhere.

What I do take comfort in, though, is that there are many, many professionals who also are skeptical of the so called "official" 911 story. One group that I like to follow regarding this matter is the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Here's a link to there website, and keep in mind that these dudes are very serious...

World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth

So, make of what you will, and all that...

Peace

BBM