Building 7

[Angel of Ioren]

Wtc7

Finally isn't it amazing how these demolitions got planted in one of the most security watched building on the planet, and not just that, the wiring would have to cover all the floors of the 110 story building and non of this work was spotted been done by anyone. Oh of course security in all three buildings were in on this conspiracy and turned a blind eye to it all

That's a really good point. I've seen images of buildings wired to be demolished and the amount of wires is impressive. In all of the controversy, where is the proof that this was the case?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Wtc7

Wow Lance, when you go after something, you really go after it.
You bring up some great points, and hopefully they will be satisfactory to anyone that is sitting on the fence about this topic.

The more evidence is shown, the less likely it seems that controlled demolitions were used.

 

[Kieran]

Wtc7

That's a really good point. I've seen images of buildings wired to be demolished and the amount of wires is impressive. In all of the controversy, where is the proof that this was the case?

Just typing another post different thread. Thanks Angel. There is know proof of anything sinister having happened prior to 9/11..I don't think Pixel can deny the logistical effort that would be required in wiring three buildings for demolition. If he has evidence beside speculation and hearsay please do share even a witness that saw this happen will be better than nothing.

 

[Bob Watson]

Wtc7

ok i must ask these questions
1.IF wtc 1 2 AND 7 Were brought down by contoled intenal explosions;
WHO put the exposives there?
2 when was the work done?
3 how long did it take to place the exposives?
4 are there any WITNESSES to the work being done?
keep in mind when answering that all 3 buildings were open to the public 24/7
the buildings in questiton were NEVER 100% empty
and when answering question 1 dont just answer the goverment please provide me with the name of a company who did the work.
Also keep in mind there are only a handfull of companys that do work on the scale to bring down WTC 1 2 and 7
and the army COE is NOT one of them!

 

[cottonzway]

Wtc7

Better questions.

Who funded KSM $100K in the days previous to the 9/11 attacks? That would be Gen. Mahmud Ahmed who was head of the Pakistani ISI at the time of the events. Gen. Ahmed was in the US at the time of the attacks in Washington DC meeting with Bob Graham and Porter Goss (who later became head of the CIA). Ahmed resigned on 9/27/01.

That poses some serious questions IMO. Like what was he doing there and why did we let him leave the country? Why did Goss become the head of the CIA after this when it should have shown a major character flaw in being so naive to not alert others that this man would be a person of interest when a major terror attack happened by Muslim extremists? Should this incident shown him too inept to be in such an important position as the director of the CIA (this is assuming it was incompetence and not "in on it" but that can be debated as well until we have more answers IMO)? Where was Porter Goss' testimony to the 9/11 Commission Report about the meeting and why did the 9/11 panel make no mention of the meeting or the fact that Gen. Ahmed was one of the financiers of the 9/11 attacks? Why the fuck are we in Iraq and Afghanistan when the actual funding for these attacks were through Pakistan (their government or as a proxy)?






Vigilant Guardian

Vigilant Warrior

Northern Vigilance

Northern Guardian

Tripod II

Unnamed NRO war game exercise

All at the same time? Was there an investigation to see if there were any of the same people or agencies/companies involved in the set up of these war games? That is kinda important when our whole aerospace/counter intelligence apparatus was rendered useless that day. What was the 9/11 Commissions opinions on these matters? Oh, that's right, they didn't even mention them. Bang up job there.




I can go on and on.....

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Wtc7

ok i must ask these questions
1.IF wtc 1 2 AND 7 Were brought down by contoled intenal explosions;
WHO put the exposives there?
2 when was the work done?
3 how long did it take to place the exposives?
4 are there any WITNESSES to the work being done?
keep in mind when answering that all 3 buildings were open to the public 24/7
the buildings in questiton were NEVER 100% empty
and when answering question 1 dont just answer the goverment please provide me with the name of a company who did the work.
Also keep in mind there are only a handfull of companys that do work on the scale to bring down WTC 1 2 and 7
and the army COE is NOT one of them!

If all the buildings were open 24/7 then the work could have been done by anybody at anytime and not seen by anyone.

 

[Bob Watson]

Wtc7

in order to place the exposives properly the workers had to reach the core suports this would take the removal of walls and extensive drilling. NO WITTNESS has come forwanrd in 10 years to vaildate ANY suspicious activity in 3 thats right 3 buildings! think about it .it would take masive amounts of thermite masive amounts of wires Massive amounts of detenators to Bring down ONE of the twin towers... AND NO ONE SAW ANYTHING??? So come on pls Just answer this WHO rigged the buildings? what company? and HOW? AND WITH OUT ANY ONE SEEING THEM DO IT????

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Wtc7

Phil, I am not sure what you mean above but even the Truthers agree that, for the buildings to be rigged, there would have to vast conspiracy because of the monumental task of job. The Truthers allow for a imaginary conspiracy of ANY size since they are unfettered by reality, of course. So no problem there.

One of vesvehighfolk's questions contained the fact that the buildings were open 24/7. There was opportunity for someone or some group to have access to them. I am not saying that this is the case, but there was opportunity so it is possible.

Did you notice that there was no mention of the penthouse of WTC7 falling? Most Truthers just ignore this event which signaled the beginning of the collapse.

The time from the penthouse collapsing to ultimate collapse is 6 seconds. A piece of the east side falls but it is not till the time of the penthouse falling at the 8 sec. mark that the building starts to collapse. Apart from the slight wobble the building falls straight down into its own footprint. This raises a few questions in my mind.
1. Why did the building collapse when experts have said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.
2. Are there any other examples (other than WTC 1 & 2) of any other building collapsing in a similar manner due to fires?
FEMA concluded: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. "(FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)
3. Have FEMA since updated this conclusion in the years since 2002?

 

[Bob Watson]

Wtc7

It is my hope that this vid proves my case that the 3 were NOT demolished by contolled demolitions:

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Wtc7

Actually your video shows how similar WTC 1 & 2's collapse was to a controlled demolition. Some witnesses had reported hearing noises that sounded like explosions prior to the collapse. The cores and some of the columns of the buildings were a fair way from the outer walls so it may be possible that the flashes etc. may have been diffused before exiting the windows.
The video offers an opinion as to the (producer of its) claim that it was not a controlled demo. Other videos use similar vision to say that it was. I don't know who to believe, really.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Wtc7

Phil have you seen demolitions that begin at the top and work down? Can you cite one?

No i can't. But does that mean it is not possible? "Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., said in an interview: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”-(Bollyn, 2002)

Among collapsed buildings I am quite sure that WTC7 is the only 47 story steel-reinforced high rise to collapse from uncontrolled fire AFTER A 110 STORY BUILDING COLLAPSED BESIDE IT DAMAGING AND WEAKENING IT.

Can we say that was what caused it to collapse? Random fires that were unlikely to be hot enough to weaken the structure. Is it definitive that the structure was weakened sufficiently to cause the collapse? Many say no despite the NIST report.

WTC7 did not fall precisely into its own footprint. For instance, Fiterman Hall (a 15 story building across the steet) was so heavily damaged by the WTC7 collapse that it had to be demolished.

Looks pretty neat to me. Sure it may have damaged some other buildings while coming down but i'm sure that the demolishers could care less about a bit pf collateral damage at that point.

 

[dyingsun]

Wtc7

I was about to reference/quote an eyewitness, then realized this topic has become more folklore then it should be. Enjoy your fisticuffs.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Wtc7

And that's the problem. For every expert for, there is an expert against. Which experts do you believe?

 

[dyingsun]

Wtc7

drunken ramblings, don't mind me.

 

[Han]

Wtc7

Dear Lance I take my hat off to you, you make some very valid points and have exposed to me what my opinons(beliefs) regarding 9/11 are based on, a collection of speculations, interpretations and biases. But I still hold them.
I think any aspect of the scenario when isolated and analysed has multiple explanations or interpretations. And as with any event in the past that you where not actively involved in, your opinion or view on that said event will be formed by the information you receive and the way you analyse it, memory also comes into play, your brain searches for simular occourances. You end up with your own "truth" or belief. This personal "truth" is as prominent as if you where actively involved, the comunication of past events is a fundermental factor in our success as a species but is also our "Achilles heel" as it can be effected or biased by the comunicator and countless other factors, not taking into account fabrications of events.
As I have said before the world changed because of 9/11, countless people are dead and will die, sadly there are people profiting from the resulting wars and conflicts.
In my opinion there are enough "coincidences" and "anomalies" in the official explanations to add to an already established miss trust to cast serious doubts in my mind, in other words I do not feel able to trust people that have taken us to war on false pretences (WMD) would consider sacrificing their own citizens as taboo, although I do not believe that the government was directly to blame or involved I do not think its out of the realm of possibility. Particularly if I factor in incidents from the past like "the Gulf of Tonkin incident", "operation northwoods" and my personal favorite operation mincemeat*. People are more devious than we can comprehend and trully anything is possible when the motivation or need is present.
I have realised as a result of this forum that I would actually consider myself to be a sceptical person and that is exactly why I dont always accept the endorsed explanation of events. I try to look at the bigger picture and from different aspects, motive is a primary factor in my conclusions and there are undeniably people who profited from 9/11 and the aftermath who therefore had the motivation of financial gain. The world is ruled by "wealth"(money) and people who will do anything to protect or obtain it. Dont get me wrong I love humanity and believe we are inherently good beings but we are more subject to instict than we in general realise or admit to and are all to easilly manipulated or decieved.

Respectfully agreeing to disagree Harry

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat

 

[cottonzway]

Wtc7

Phil, I am not sure what you mean above but even the Truthers agree that, for the buildings to be rigged, there would have to vast conspiracy because of the monumental task of job. Fortunately, the Truthers allow for a imaginary conspiracy of ANY size since they are unfettered by reality. So no problem there.

===

Cotton, I am sure that you could go on and on but I did look into one of your claims (your first one):



Even the one (and apparently only) source for this story (Times India) says that the money was wired at the General's request by someone else. This has apparently not been proven (I am not saying that it didn't happen) but merely alleged. I think you hurt your own position when you state things as fact that are actually supposition but hey, it's your dime.

I am not going to look into the other stuff you posted (some of which I don't even understand) but am happy to try to discuss concrete ideas, if you can dumb them down for me and more precisely cite them.

Lance

It's interesting that our current VP first dodges the question and then later states that it is "classified" information.


Here are the facts. Ahmed was in the US the day of 9/11. He resigned 16 days later. The 9/11 Commission Report does not mention him or his obvious ties to actual terrorists involved in the attacks. I don't have access to classified information and intelligence reports. I can piece basic information together though and make a reasonable assumption based on those facts that says, where there is smoke there is fire. Now it wasn't my JOB to investigate these allegations. That would have been the job of the FAILURE that was the 9/11 Commission Panel. The head of one of the major intelligence agencies in the world who has ties to terrorists, was meeting with prominent members of government and intelligence on that actual day, and then has to resign 16 days later. Something is really off here. Now I am not even saying he was setting it up with those people or anything, but what he was doing should have been officially questioned and looked into. There is a theme of real information being overlooked or ignored. That is a cover up of some sort for someone. Hell, I didn't even mention ABLE DANGER. Take a look at that and what Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer has to say about it.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Wtc7

Hi Phil,

I am happy to discuss but reading your responses above, I am not even sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

1. You mention how WTC1&2 looked like controlled demolition.
2. I then establish that you have never seen a top down demolition before (I don't think that has ever been one). Thus WTC1&2 DON'T and CAN'T look like any controlled demolitpn you have ever seen!
3. You then quote someone supporting the idea that a top down controlled demolition does not make sense.

So we are in agreement?

I should mention that WTC1&2 are off topic (making me guilty of being off topic here, too, yes) and perhaps another thread would be appropriate?

Lance

No what i said is, I cannot provide evidence or cite an example of a "top down" controlled demolition. On that point we agree. Mark Loizeaux, a demolition expert, certainly believes it is possible to do so. In fact I believe he is not the only demolition expert to say so.
In that respect i cannot take the possibility of a controlled demolition , in any of the cases, off the table. It is indeed possible that a building could be demolished from the top down. Whether it was or not is conjecture i agree.
Can you cite an example of another building falling as WTC 7 (and indeed WTC 1 & 2) did?
Sorry to bring in the twin towers but in respect to the manner in which they fell it is strikingly similar to WTC 7. Three buildings built to withstand heavy damage , or impact, falling in exactly the same manner on exactly the same day is unprecedented.

 

[cottonzway]

Wtc7

Why do you keep bring up that stupid card game when nobody here is suggesting they have any validity to the claims others make about them? There are misinformed and crazy people all over the place. The thing is nobody here is making those claims and most people who look at conspiracies think that is totally absurd as well. What is the point of brining it up several times?

 

[PararealitySaint]

Wtc7

So the question I ask is, Can we honestly say that WTC was "never hit by anything".
Lance

Lance,

I was the one who called the building "she", as I was referring to thus in a more familiar manner. Sorry I confused the issue.

Anyway, my original point about nothing "hitting" WTC7 was based on not one "missile" hitting the property, not debris from other buildings.

Even considering this, take a look at the interstate building just next door:



As you can plainly see, this building has within it a great deal more advanced damage in both its metal deterioration as well as its fires throughout, etc., yet this building never fell.

The original point was that there were many around WTC7 which might have received debris and fallout as the predominant reason for the fires, etc., and many of them were in much worse shape than WTC7, but none of them fell in a demolition type of way that WTC7 did. This deserves some further investigation as far as I am concerned, and I would sincerely love it if someone could show me (with factual evidence) as to why this was the case.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Wtc7

Para,

Again, I am not an expert on the case-my understanding is that a unique aspect of the engineering of WTC7 caused it to rely entirely on 3 all important trusses. These trusses were weakened and failed which lead to a global collapse of the building.

Can you identify the building in your posted image. I will look into it as well.

Thanks,

Lance

This was the interstate bank building in Los Angeles. I forget the number, sorry. The reference to this can be found at one of the conspiracy sites: http://wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

My point was in and around the WTC7, and I was in NY the day it happened, were showing much more damage than WTC7, yet none of them fell like WTC7. If it might have been the trusses as you say, then thanks for the information. Again, I am not pro or con conspiracy at this point, just have some unanswered questions and feel it deserves further investigation.