Thread: No conspiracy to blow-up WTC 7

My feeling is that the authorities had been following groups who had threatened to do quite a number of things, but the times were different. Perhaps they knew a group planned to do something like 9-11 but didn't know when, of if the threat was genuine. 1995 to 2001 is quite a while and more than one official had seen nothing happen. If a group is suspected of planning to crash airliners into a building as early as 1995...and so far had not done it, imagine the uproar if an airliner was shot down because someone in the government (not everyone, even) suspected it might contain someone planning to ram it into the WTC.
No government official with the authority to do so is going to give that order unless they are ***POSITIVE*** such would be the end result.
Proof positive of such things is often hard to find. Likely in those days officials suggesting such a thing might happen would have been laughed out of the room for being "paranoid".
After all..."that stuff doesn't happen HERE".
Or at least it used not to.
Likely if officials said "terrorists are going to blow up WTC with airliners!" higher officials would have simply said "Sure they are."

Just my opinion.


John P.

They shouldve started to hunt terrorists back in the 60's when they first started that skyjacking crap. But instead govts made people like yaser arafat into psuedo legitimate leaders and Time magazines man of the year, instead of treating him as the butcher he was they made a celeb out of the guy, he got money power and fame, you cant blame the rest of the worlds deginerates for reaching for the same thing by murdering the innocent. Terrorists werent a serious problem to be dealt with until the elitists in New York and DC were inconvenienced.

Originally Posted by denmason

Sorry folks, I can't buy the pancake theory of the heat weakened steel. Anyone know if they every explained the traces of termites that were found.
One thing I do know is that we will never really find out what happened.

Oh, I was speaking about the collapse of the Twin Towers. I have never read any report that had a plausible explaination for WTC 7. Maybe you're right. It may have been termites

Here's a good page: 9/11 Videos - The Controlled Collapse of WTC 7

So with all that was going on around WTC7 on that terrible day they just whipped up a demolition team, wired the main support columns and blew the building up ? Sounds far fetched to me. But as I said in another thread, my Grandfather told me fifty years ago to believe half of what you see and nothing that you read.

From what I've seen on national geographic, controlled destruction takes at minimum several days to plan and prepare. So they'd had to have known in advance.
Then there is all the business with drilling large holes in pillars for shoving the explosives into, running wires throughout the building, knocking down walls, putting wooden boards over the explosives, ...

Kinda hard to do that in a couple of hours (usually takes days) and without people noticing.
Even if they'd wired the building in advance, people would have noticed the wires, the knowcked down walls, the construction people drilling hols in the pillars and such.

I am willing to accept that when it happened, there was a lot of political cya by the people who should have prevented this. And who knows; maybe the 4th plane was shot down after all.

But looking just at WTC7, there is an acceptable logical explanation.
And the alternative can only be true if you accept that
- the US government planned the whole thing
- people wouldn't have noticed their building being wired
- a conspiracy involving 100s or even 1000s of people can be kept secret

Originally Posted by JohnP

Likely if officials said "terrorists are going to blow up WTC with airliners!" higher officials would have simply said "Sure they are."
.

True.
The key to a succesul attack is to do something totally unlikely.
Which also means that the whole airport obstacle course is pointless. The next attack will be something out of the blue.

Imagine what would happen if people poisoned the water supply of a big city with slow working poison, giving it a couple of days before people start to notice.
Or if they could take out hoover dam, or if they suddenly find out that you don't need to bring a bomb into a high security airport if you can just phone in a bomb threat (or set of a small decoy) and then explode a mojor bomb in the evacuation zone on the parking lot or in the entrance hall...

I think part of the reason for the current security circus is to make people feel safe and to prevent people from actually thinking, because the US might be paralysed by fear.

Originally Posted by Bruno

True.
The key to a succesul attack is to do something totally unlikely.
Which also means that the whole airport obstacle course is pointless. The next attack will be something out of the blue.

Imagine what would happen if people poisoned the water supply of a big city with slow working poison, giving it a couple of days before people start to notice.

I am glad that my water supply comes from our well!

Originally Posted by denmason

WTC building 7 was a trapezoid type of structure. The larger side of the building would be heavier and more massive. This is where column 79 was located. NIST claims that column 79 collapsed, leading to the collapse of the whole building. Column 79 was on the larger side of the building. Here's a simplified floor plan:

Column 79 is at the lower left. NIST claims that only column 79 was destroyed in the beginning of the collapse sequence, and because the same side of the building in which 79 was located was the bigger, heavier side of the building, two different influences should have ensured that the building tilted toward the bigger end,building 7 should have tipped towards one side.
I think many folks don't understand just how tough these buildings really are. In 1999 I was involved with testing the structural integrity of the new EPA building in Sacramento. The 14th floor was stress tested by using 500 55 gallon barrels filled with water. They were placed on a large area of open floor space. Over 110 tons was applied to the floor,and it held this weight for 4 hours, it sagged over 2 feet during the test. No failure at all, everything came back into place after completion of the test, and not even a crack in the concrete. Sorry folks, I can't buy the pancake theory of the heat weakened steel. Anyone know if they every explained the traces of thermite that were found.
One thing I do know is that we will never really find out what happened.

According to your diagram, if 79 was gone, then it's likely that 40, 42 or 44 were at least partialy damaged or weakened. In which case there is a whole lot of building resting on thin air.

Or if it was 30 or 35, the same would be true except the building would collapse starting from the other direction.
And that drawing doesn't show how the pillars are connected to each other at various levels. It's impossible to judge how the building would fall down without detailed blueprints.

Even changing something trivial like changing nut/bolt joints to rivet joints can significantly change how a building collapses. Looking only at the pillars and the weight distribution is like solving an equation by ignoring half the variables and constraints.

And the building in your stress test example was not structurally damaged. A floor can only sag that much and remain intact if the load is properly balanced. If it was unbalanced on one end, that floor would have ripped apart like an envelope.

I obviously can't answer every last detail, but all in all I think it is more likely that WTC7 went down on its own, and that people tried to cover up their own incompetence.
As for some of the other details... I don't know. But as I explained before: coicidences happen, and I don't see the need to automatically assume the worst.

Originally Posted by JimmyH-AD

So with all that was going on around WTC7 on that terrible day they just whipped up a demolition team, wired the main support columns and blew the building up ? Sounds far fetched to me. But as I said in another thread, my Grandfather told me fifty years ago to believe half of what you see and nothing that you read.

I'm down with Jimmy on this issue. I see no need for any internal conspiracy when there is overwhelming proof of a long planned terrorist attack launched from the Middle East by the very same people who had already carried out numerous attacks against the USA and our allies(previous WTC bombing, USS Cole, Phillipines nightclub, etc). Why WTC 7 went down may remain unanswered. However, if we accept the destruction of the Twin Towers was caused by fully fueled airliners piloted by Saudi Arabian terrorists, how can we possibly assume the collapse of WTC 7 on the same day would be attributable to anything else? Especially something as implausible as suspecting a minor building was wired with numerous carefully placed demolition charges awaiting for an indeterminable period of time the execution of a suspected plot against the two major buildings next door. If this is so, should we assume there are many other targets all around the country wired and waiting for some random event to occur?

Hey maybe Reverend Fred Phelps and his whacky family of hate mongers: Westboro Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is correct when he says that God caused the World Trade Center tragedy in retribution for tolerance of homosexuality.

As said earlier there's nothing to be gainesd by this hypothesis. At best a threat that turned out to be serious was ignored by two aministrations which would say they weren't considered credible. At worst... well... we're still where we are today it sucks and all, but knowledge cof what heppened can't prevent it from happening again.

Now the rediculious TSA rules and whatnot that have stemmed from that are another thread altogether; Actually there's many topics that are relevant that stem from this. But if there is this kind of corruption at this high level we couldn't know for sure for many years, even then it would be a bit fuitle.

Edit: PS to icedog... why'd you have to bring up Fred Phelps? I'm gonna be playing him in a play soon; It's tough to do research on that without shuddering. I didn't need that here