I think you got a fully-baked story...as in "wake and bake" :m: 
WTC Building 7 Anomalies
- Thread starter MacGyver1968
- Start date
the building was probably "rigged" for demolition as soon as the decision was made to store sensitive information there.
could have been years ago.
You guys are missing the point. When towers 1 and 2 fell we all thought damn, that's a shame... right?
But when we found out building 7 fell, the reaction was viseral. I wanted to go to war with whoever our goverment suggested. I mean for the love of God NOT BUILDING 7!!!
Am I right or am I right!
buildings 1 and 2 did not collapse "simply due to fires".
my opinion is that 1 and 2 was not a fail safe design.
the presence of butt joints in the perimeter columns supports that opinion.
i also feel that once the planes caused the damage it was only a matter of time before those buildings collapsed regardless of the fires.
if you cannot understand how 1 and 2 fell then you need to familiarize yourself with how they were constructed.Any rational educated adult can see the fairy tell they are trying to sell. My son acts just like those guys when he is trying to manipulate me.
once you understand the mechanics of the construction it becomes easy to see how and why they collapsed.
Here are those butt joints indicated by yellow arrows:
So...let me get this straight...you believe the twin towers collapsed due to the plane damage and resulting fire...but believe WTC7 was cd'ed? :bugeye:
The issue here is building 7.
no.Here are those butt joints indicated by yellow arrows:
the joints of which i speak are located in the perimeter columns.
there is also evidence of these types of joints being used in the core as well.
yes.
Please clarify what you mean...The pic I posted showed where floor joists connect to the perimeter columns. That's where the failure occurred...what butt joints are you talking about?
So were AQ terrorists flying the planes?
No, you can disagree all you want but actual scientists speint years in figuring out how it collapsed.
But in your case what is so funny is that even when proven wrong, you still cling to your rediculous conclusions.
In that video they compare a 47 story model with a video of just the 17 top stories and you wonder why they don't look exactly the same.
Secondly, the key to the model was the damage leading up to the START of the global collapse, and the key there is the very close match of the model to the kink and the falling in of the penthouse prior to the start of the global collapse, but as the collapse progresses the ability of the model to continue to match reality becomes less and less (read the NIST report to understand why).
But why not just presume that the NIST scientists are, like Silverstein, also "IN ON IT", because living in a fantasy world is so much more fun.
Bye
Arthur
Last edited:
The perimeter columns were connected to each other vertically with Butt Joints, that were bolted, and then welded, but as you can see in the picture you posted, the perimeter columns were also staggered over three floors and thus there was no weak row of butt joints running around a floor and as you point out, that wasn't the location of the failure, even in the pictures of the whole side of the WTC building being pulled in, the perimeter joints didn't fail, the columns buckled.
Arthur
If you claim that they did a CD on WTC 7 then you can't separate what happened to WTC 1 & 2 from WTC 7.
There are FAR easier and much more positive ways to destroy sensitive information than demolishing a building, and more to the point, demolishing a building does little to ensure that sensitive information is actually lost.
Quite a bit of totally intact materials were recovered from the site.
Arthur
in the perimeter columns, what more can i say?
yes.
911 happened as a terrorist hit.
but something must explain silverstiens quote.
do you really believe "pull it" means to remove the firefighters? be honest.
if you have watched a number of different videos on CD's then you have to conclude that 7 was demo'd.
what else can explain this?
yeah, it's all speculation. but it's still plausible, and could probably be correct.
Really? Do post a link.
O.K. Sure. But I wasn't commenting on the demolition of WTC 1&2. But while we're at it, if this explanation is so sound, how on earth could anybody know that these building were going to collapse right after the buildings were hit? The engineers designed the to take the impact of several airplanes. This was understood. It was thought they would surive an impact. Yet the Office of Emergency Management knew, they gave the order to evacuate on the ground and get the firefighters and emergency personnel out. Huh? How'd they do that?
How did they know, that quickly in advance that the towers were coming down?
Well..Silverstein was talking to the fire chief at the time...do you think the FDNY was responsible for cd'ing the building? If the building was cd'ed covertly...then why talk about it on PBS? That doesn't make any sense.
So...AQ attacks the WTC 1&2...causing WTC7 to catch fire. So Silverstein calls the fire department and tells them to CD the building with the Hush-a-Boom brand silent explosives they planted in the building years ago.. to destroy sensitive government materials in the building...and collect the insurance money.
no, the ultimate responsibility would be in the intelligence community.
a goof or blurb from silverstein, maybe he was talking to someone he thought he could trust.
did i say anything about "hush a boom" explosives or insurance?
The plot thickens...
I have to give you credit, I haven't thought of that, probably because it is so crazy. Do you know ANY other building that is rigged with explosives, just "in case" they have to destroy sensitive material???
Also, now in the 21st century, when most of the sensitive material is simply digital on hard drives, do they still have to demolish a whole building or just one giant magnet would do the trick???
I have to give you credit, I haven't thought of that, probably because it is so crazy. Do you know ANY other building that is rigged with explosives, just "in case" they have to destroy sensitive material???
Also, now in the 21st century, when most of the sensitive material is simply digital on hard drives, do they still have to demolish a whole building or just one giant magnet would do the trick???
Well, he can. Why do you expect logic from him?? What they are saying is that the Twin Towers where terrorized, and the government quickly used that opportunity to demolish Building 7.
According to Leopold it was done by years ago built in explosives....
Alright, I will explain it. It could mean demolishing the building, but not necessary right away. It just means that the building is damaged beyond repair, and it should be taken down, sometimes in the future.
Sounds plausible?? Or did the quote say "we are going to pull it at 5 pm?"