Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

Waste more tax dollars chasing boogeymen.

Some times having a little knowledge is more dangerous than having none at all. If you have no knowledge of the subject then you believe what a person says. If you have a little knowledge you base your answer on the knowledge you do have but because it isn't complete you can often be wrong. Then when someone tells you are wrong, you resist it, because you feel you already came to a conclusion that makes sense.

That is the key issue here, that so many people seen and know of controlled demolition so they already jumped to that conclusion. Once people decide something, it can often be hard to change their minds, even if they are wrong.

There are over 1000 experts in the field of engineering and architecture demanding a new investigation as to how that building collapsed clearly for safety reasons so that they can build safer buildings in the future. And they all agree that building could not have collapsed due to fire alone. The full length documentary explains far more than the trailer in the OP.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

There are over 1000 experts in the field of engineering and architecture demanding a new investigation as to how that building collapsed clearly for safety reasons so that they can build safer buildings in the future. And they all agree that building could not have collapsed due to fire alone. The full length documentary explains far more than the trailer in the OP.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Their wrong. Similar building has collapsed from fire alone.

About 50 firefighters tackled the blaze at the ESP plant in the Enigma Business Park, near Malvern, which started on Wednesday morning.

The roof collapsed inside the building and flames leapt 45ft (14m) into the sky in a strong wind, Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service said.

A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles.

He added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."

And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collspse'

LOL. The person who said pull was a fire chief... and that was pulling his men out of the building.

God people believe anything they read online nowadays.

Critical thinking much?

Quote Originally Posted by Jookia View Post
Debunking implies the conspiracy story is supported by evidence.
Your post implies there is absolutely no evidence toward there being any kind of conspiracy, which is completely so far from reality that it's actually kind of sad that people are still able to say there is "No Evidence." I can be fine with people saying that there is 'no proof', because that would require that all evidence be completely conclusive. But to say there is absolutely 'no evidence' of any conspiracy is to admit that you (or anyone else making that claim) have simply not been paying attention to anything outside the official story.

Well.. There is no evidence that the WTC was taken down as part of an inside job. There is no evidence of explosives, there is no evidence of actually anything the internet conspires towards 9/11.


P.S. They didn't test the WTC for residue of Cthulhu; perhaps.. he woke from his slumber for a snack?

It could be.. the real conspiracy.. the governments hiding his existence!!

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Well.. There is no evidence that the WTC was taken down as part of an inside job. There is no evidence of explosives, there is no evidence of actually anything the internet conspires towards 9/11.

You can repeat that statement as many times as you like, and it still won't make it true.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

P.S. They didn't test the WTC for residue of Cthulhu; perhaps.. he woke from his slumber for a snack?

It could be.. the real conspiracy.. the governments hiding his existence!!

Right, because the feasibility of WTC7 (at the very least) having been brought down by explosives is just equal to the feasibility of the government hiding Cthulhu. Isn't it? I really hope this is not the same type of logic you use in every exchange you make... It's not, is it?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Their wrong. Similar building has collapsed from fire alone.

We are talking about skyscrapers here and not small paper factories. Look at the image of the inferno below at the Beijing Mandarin Oriental hotel. About 100 feet shorter than WTC 7 and it is still standing perfectly the next day. Skyscrapers are designed far differently to low level buildings such as the paper factory in the UK.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

LOL. The person who said pull was a fire chief... and that was pulling his men out of the building.

God people believe anything they read online nowadays.

Critical thinking much?

Source please?

Silverstein said, 'Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull IT' How does that refer to pulling firefighters out of a building?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Well.. There is no evidence that the WTC was taken down as part of an inside job. There is no evidence of explosives, there is no evidence of actually anything the internet conspires towards 9/11.

The full length documentary by the scientists in the OP video are saying that W.T.C. 7 could not have collapsed the way it did as concluded by the official investigating body, N.I.S.T. Instead they collectively say that the most likely explanation, without access to all of the necessary physical evidence, is that it was controlled demolition. The theme of the documentary film, and a lot of people are missing this point, is that if W.T.C building no. 7 was brought down by explosive or incendary devices, they are not pointing the finger at WHO carried out this controlled demolition but why it wasn't investigated as a possible cause of the collapse. They are disturbed that this hypothesis hasn't been examined. However, some of them do say privately outside of this documentary film that they think it was a 'False Flag' attack rather than Al Qaeda members planting the demolition devices.

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

Below is the Abstract from the paper that these scientists wrote. And just as a point of interest lets take a quick look at the life work of Professor Emeritus Steven E. Jones to have an idea of the calibre of these scientists.

Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University. And finally, a lecturer of physics at Brigham Young university until 2006.

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

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen

Abstract:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

911 Mystery Solved - Nano-thermite discovered in WTC remains

Just because people have the title "engineer" or "architect", doesn't mean they know anything about skyscrapers. Or even buildings in general. The official story seems to make as much sense to me as this conspiracy claim, and I can't see how a government that can't keep a blowjob secret could orchestrate something like that without someone blowing the whistle.

WTC 7 was demolished. I saw it on one of the news channels on 9/11. An anchorwoman said "oh look they're demolishing WTC 7 for safety reasons". The real question is how did that paperwork get so lost that the government is now denying the demolition?

Originally Posted by cmind

WTC 7 was demolished. I saw it on one of the news channels on 9/11. An anchorwoman said "oh look they're demolishing WTC 7 for safety reasons". The real question is how did that paperwork get so lost that the government is now denying the demolition?

Not only that, Jane Stanley, a correspondent for the BBC stated on live air that building 7 had collapsed when you can see behind her that it is still standing. Consider also that WTC 7 is (supposedly) the first skyscraper in history to have collapsed from fire alone it is incredibly disturbing for the BBC to say this. When investigative journalists asked to see the tape of that report the BBC claims they 'lost' it. Fortunately we can still watch it on YouTube.

Another gobsmacking moment is when Larry Silverstein, landlord of the world trade centre, stated during an interview, 'we've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collspse'

Now some people say that pull isn't a demolition term but it did used to be used as a demolition term about 50 years ago to pull a building over. Even if Silverstein wasn't referring to demolition it begs the question - what the bloody hell was he referring to?

Originally Posted by mcwillis

Another gobsmacking moment is when Larry Silverstein, landlord of the world trade centre, stated during an interview, 'we've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collspse'

Now some people say that pull isn't a demolition term but it did used to be used as a demolition term about 50 years ago to pull a building over. Even if Silverstein wasn't referring to demolition it begs the question - what the bloody hell was he referring to?

And if that isn't what he was talking about, he wouldn't have said "and we watched the building collapse".

Originally Posted by cmind

WTC 7 was demolished. I saw it on one of the news channels on 9/11. An anchorwoman said "oh look they're demolishing WTC 7 for safety reasons". The real question is how did that paperwork get so lost that the government is now denying the demolition?

I hope you're not basing your argument on what some anchorwoman said with no context other than a vague referral to "safety reasons."

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I hope you're not basing your argument on what some anchorwoman said with no context other than a vague referral to "safety reasons."

Hmm. Let's avoid confusion. What do you think my argument is?

Originally Posted by cmind

Hmm. Let's avoid confusion. What do you think my argument is?

What you said:

WTC 7 was demolished. I saw it on one of the news channels on 9/11. An anchorwoman said "oh look they're demolishing WTC 7 for safety reasons".

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

What you said:

State my argument in your own words.

No, the question is how do you execute a perfect demolition which usually takes weeks to plan and coordinate only a few hours after the supposed justification? Unless you are insinuating that every building in Manhattan is wired to blow the moment shit hits the fan. The twin towers were also demolished, after all. The evidence is irrefutable at this point. Explosive debris found in ground zero = demolition.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

No, the question is how do you execute a perfect demolition which usually takes weeks to plan and coordinate only a few hours after the supposed justification? Unless you are insinuating that every building in Manhattan is wired to blow the moment shit hits the fan. The twin towers were also demolished, after all. The evidence is irrefutable at this point. Explosive debris found in ground zero = demolition.

I doubt you're qualified to judge whether or not a demolition was "perfect" from mere video footage. Is it possible to demolish a building with a few hours notice? Yes. Were people in a sufficiently panicked mindset (especially the owners of WTC 7 that maybe wanted more insurance money) to actually attempt a same-day demolition? Yes. Was WTC 7 demolished? Yes.

Originally Posted by cmind

Was WTC 7 demolished? Yes.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

No, the question is how do you execute a perfect demolition which usually takes weeks to plan and coordinate only a few hours after the supposed justification?

Wanna know what helps?

Having a brother heavily-involved in the upper echelons of security for the WTC complex.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Bush was on the board of directors of Securacom from 1993-2000, which maintained security for the World Trade Center Towers up until September 11, 2001.

Marvin P. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just another 'wacky coincidence' of 9/11, that we're all supposed to ignore.

That cartoon alleges that they would all have to have known the level to which the conspiracy existed, if at all.

It also alleges that all demolition experts involved in said allegation would have reservations about keeping it a secret (and must be considered alongside the fact that many heinous conspiracies - which completely undermine what you and I might consider 'common morality' - have been carried out over the centuries. How long was the Tuskegee experiment kept secret? Operation Gladio? What? We are tryin to paint the picture that multi-faceted conspiracies simply 'don't happen' in reality? Is that what you're suggesting? Oh, but wait, this was Nine Eleven! It was the most [insert desired hyperbole here] conspiracy in history and could not (ignoring lack of reference) be kept secret! Contract killers are incapable of keeping such secrets, and first responders are too sharp to be deceived by such a rouse, while in the midst of a senory-overloading situation!

Forgive me if I don't take "well, if it would have been a conspiracy, somebody would have told by now" as a foolproof debunking of the theory. *shrug*

All that being said, though, it is a cute cartoon.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

That cartoon alleges that they would all have to have known the level to which the conspiracy existed, if at all.

It also alleges that all demolition experts involved in said allegation would have reservations about keeping it a secret (and must be considered alongside the fact that many heinous conspiracies - which completely undermine what you and I might consider 'common morality' - have been carried out over the centuries. How long was the Tuskegee experiment kept secret? Operation Gladio? What? We are tryin to paint the picture that multi-faceted conspiracies simply 'don't happen' in reality? Is that what you're suggesting? Oh, but wait, this was Nine Eleven! It was the most [insert desired hyperbole here] conspiracy in history and could not (ignoring lack of reference) be kept secret! Contract killers are incapable of keeping such secrets, and first responders are too sharp to be deceived by such a rouse, while in the midst of a senory-overloading situation!

Forgive me if I don't take "well, if it would have been a conspiracy, somebody would have told by now" as a foolproof debunking of the theory. *shrug*

All that being said, though, it is a cute cartoon.

I'm not sure how something like Tuskegee, which was first learned about about precisely because it was exposed by a whistleblower, is supposed to counter the comic.

Originally Posted by Jookia

No, I don't mean that. But even then, that doesn't mean you can fill up lack of knowledge with idiot guesses.

Your immediate labeling of 'idiot' guesses show how personal it is for you to not take anything against the official story seriously. If you're goin to immediately come out of the gate by insulting my intelligence over something like that (something which made perfect sense, by the way), then this exchange isn't going to last very long. I didn't say that X meant Y. I mean X leading to Z is something that should be investigated, as all evidence should.

[Allegations are not evidence.

Unless those allegations are made by a source you have faith in, yes?

I'd like a source for that.

It's in the video, which posts diagrams and clippings stating exactly that, which you are more than welcome to search for, yourself. That you aren't familiar with it doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you've put as much into 'looking through various 9/11 sites' as you've implied.

Did you read my post or just decide to post crackpot theories? All of your post is summed up as 'they didn't do X, which means that Y could've happened'.

What I mean is that if I have a theory like 'eggs explode when they're eaten after midnight', I can test that and prove it to be false, or true. Could you show me something like that? Something I can hypothetically prove wrong.

Something that You are going to test? How are you going to test something? I don't know exactly what you're looking for, really. Could you give me an example, as it pertains to 9/11?

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not sure how something like Tuskegee, which was first learned about about precisely because it was exposed by a whistleblower, is supposed to counter the comic.

Aren't you a mathematician, Xei?
What question did I ask you, above? It was really pretty straight forward.

I asked you 'HOW LONG did it take for the Tuskegee experiment to come to public attention?' (paraphrase)

It took about FORTY YEARS.

How long has it been since 9/11?

So your implication of 'the fact that it hasn't come to light yet is evidence against it being conspiracy' is completely, utterly, ridiculously (stop me when you start to disagree) illogical.

And Jookia, I welcome the debate. I'm not trying to 'change anyone's mind' on a conclusion of whether or not it was a conspiracy. I'm simply trying to present that there is a lot more to some of the theories than some people (for whatever reason) are emotionally capable of even considering. That's all.

Debunking implies the conspiracy story is supported by evidence.