Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

**khh** · 09-20-2012 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Pro-Explosives Point: George Bush's brother was on the board of directors of the company in charge of security for the WTC, up until 2001. IF there were explosives planted in the buildings, security would conceivably have all access to the building, without sending up any red flags.

It's conceivable, but I'm not sure how he could do it. Claim they were doing restoration outside office hours?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Pro-Explosives Point: You talk about how it takes weeks to set up a demolition project. You are talking about the use of industrial-grade explosives, I assume. IF these buildings were to have been taken down as a part of a military false flag operation, there are many other types of explosives that could have been used, most probably of military-grade; some of which can be sprayed on as a foam and set off by radio, eliminating the need for all of the conspicuous wiring used in traditional, industrial demolitions. I am not saying that this is what happened, but that it is plausible

It's not just the placement that takes time. It also takes time to research and calculate where to place the explosives to make the building collapse rather than fall over. Since the hypothesis is that this was a terrorist attack, I suppose it's possible they were placed ad hoc and they got lucky, but I'd say your explanation is possible rather than plausible.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

For anyone who wants to take the time to read the following scientific paper that appeared in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal' entitled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' you can read it at the following link:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

From what I can gather (from a quick google search) The Open Chemical Physics Journal isn't very well respected. This makes me wonder why the article was published there, rather than in a more reputable journal. Surely scientific journals wouldn't shy away from controversial subjects if the science presented in an article is sound.

Also this blogpost claims to cite a debunk of the article. While the source isn't very good, it does state that one authors of the article admitted that the flakes weren't enough by themselves to cause the collapse, and were probably used as fuses for other bombs. While I haven't checked the validity of that, it's worth a read.
Screw Loose Change: A Response to Harrit, Jones, et.al. From Dr Greening

Edit:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Simplest answer:
Because the Project for the New American Century didn't call for the deaths of a couple-hundred people. What it called for was:

*emphasis mine*

Unfortunately, downing a couple of passenger planes wouldn't have quite filled that requirement, would it?

I think you missed Xei's point. He seems to be saying something like this "There wouldn't have to be explosives to bring down the twin towers, the planes themselves were sufficient for that purpose. As this would have killed the required number of people, why would they need to place explosives in the WTC 7 building, or at all?"