Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Opinions
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-21-2011, 06:48 PM
SkepticOfLies SkepticOfLies is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7
Default Bridging The Gap: Building 7


Here is the case I made supporting my views on what happened to WTC7 which will consist of eye witness quotes, quotes from real experts, alternative reading materials, much of my own words, and video of course...Enjoy! - Jason

WTC 7




"There is no official story, there's a confluence of conclusions reached by thousands of researchers" -Ronald Wieck


Part 1: What were the eye witnesses saying about building 7?


Firefighter on the scene saying that there is "NO way that the building was NOT coming down"...Yet conspiracy theorists pretend like the building's collapse was "so strange" and "uncalled for" which couldn't be further from the truth, based on the fact that almost everyone predicted its occurrence.



Reporter live on the scene of the burning WTC 7 saying "I've heard several reports from several different officers now saying that THAT is the building that is going to come down next!". This could ONLY prove that people were well aware that the damage to the building was indeed extensive enough to cause structural failure without a doubt....Unless of course you argue that the reporter was part of the insurrance fraud and blew the lid on the conspiracy casually, along with countless other witnesses on national TV who were doing the same thing coincidentally (lmao). Which is obviously silly.



Oh, and I can provide countless more videos of these EXACT same types of eye witness accounts upon request if you feel skeptical about the overall point I'm making.

The truther video below, implies that because all the fire fighters/reporters/witnesses were saying that the building was "going to come down soon" or "I hear explosions" then that must mean that they were ALL part of this controlled demolition conspiracy againts the people of New York, and kept their mouth shut still to this day.....Yes, feel free to laugh at that ridiculous view point.

The truther who posted this particular video also specifially shows someone who said that the building was going to "blow up", therefore implying that this is solid proof of a highly orchestrated controlled demolition. Sadly this is just how truthers prey on the vunerability of confused people describing sounds/sites directly after they hear/see them without knowing the full story at the time. This is evident because almost all witnesses were aware the building was coming down due to the inferno, yet only a few mentioned anything about a "bomb". Anyway, conspiracy theorists will do anything to twist peoples words around to make them fit their theories and that has been proven time and time again (which I will go into further detail about when discussing the Silversten "pull it" comment later on).





Part 2: But WTC 7 Wasn't hit by a plane, there's no way debris and fire can do that!

Here is footage confirming that witnesses recognized structural failure well before collapse. The footage also confirms how assuming that a plane needed to hit the building to bring it down is false.



The impact from the debris caused a preliminary collapse which cleared out EVERYTHING between two of WTC 7's exterior columns (check this information out for yourself). The south/east part of the building damaged as well.


The impact from the debris was like a knife to the gut of the structure while the all the fires produced afterwards were just the nail in the coffin as far as the building's collapse goes. However conspiracy theorists are CONVINCED in their head that there was something "odd" regarding how WTC 7 came down, even though, pretty much all witnesses/reporters/police/firefighters that day assumed that collapse was inevitable just by looking at the damage.....Ironically, everyone see's the simple truth but the "truthers" themselves.

Part 3: It collapsed at free fall speed!

The penthouse part of the building started to collapse (way before the free fall of less than 3 seconds occurred over the distance of 8 floors). Since the penthouse is a part of the building it is illogical to leave that part out when dealing with TOTAL collapsed time of the structure, that should be comomon sense (as shown by this video):



It seems that there actually was almost 3 seconds of free fall speed after the penthouse started collapsing, however, the remaining moments of the collapse remained constant as NIST states (free fall speeds excelerate faster and are not constant) showing at least some sigificant resistance was taking place. So why conspriacy thoeorists argue that the whole building came down in "free fall" I'll never know...

Even if the whole thing did come down at free fall speed (which it didn't anyway) that point would be mute because it still shows no direct evidence of a controlled demolition.

Part 4: But didn't WTC 7 fall into it's own foot print symmetrically?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit and this doesn't sit right with conspiracy theorists for some reason . This actually happened because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the FINAL STAGES of the building collapse (a huge point people overlook). The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were plenty of clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. All eye witnesses could sense clues that the building was inevitably going to come crashing down proving that building 7's collapse was no big "mystery" afterall.

The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 though, was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

Anyway, the twin towers did not fall into their own footprints and neither did WTC7. This is not a matter of opinion but a stone-cold fact...and I like facts.
So what exactly does it mean for a building to fall into its own footprint? Well it’s a demolition term which describes creating an implosion to destroy a building so it does NOT damage other buildings surrounding it:

(3:15)



The video points out that WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because if that were the case, it wouldn't have damaged the Verizon building and 30 W Broadway (which it did). This disproves the claim that the building "fell into it's own imprint".



Part 5: Didn't Larry Silervstein admit to "pulling" the building?

Conspiracy Theorists try to argue that Larry went through ALL THIS trouble to be involved in this huge insurrance fraud, but in the same breath, think that he was willing to incriminate himself by exposing the fraud to the public on camera? Do truthers expect me to believe that Larry wanted to be caught for his scandal? That's ridiculous but believe it or not some people buy into this nonsense.

Here's a video proving that "pulling it" is a term in the the demolition industry for "pulling" a building/remains of a building down with CABLES. Once again the term "pull it" has NOTHING to do with with controlled demolition of a building through use of explosives, that was just some conspiracy theory trash made up with nothing to support the claim as usual.

A man in this video below actually stated "we are getting ready to pull building 6" and another man even said that "they had to be careful when we demolished building 6" .....Now am I supposed to believe that ALL these men are actually involved in a controlled demolition insurance fraud, and are carelessly exposing this huge conspiracy completely casually for no reason? Or, Is more logical to assume that these men were simply just talking about "demolishing" or "pulling" the remains of the damaged building down with CABLES after the damage was done? Pretty obvious choice.



Larry Silverstein said in an interview that when he said "pull it" he wasn't even talking about the building anyway, he was actually talking about the contingent of firefighters that needed to be pulled.


"On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ...

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building"

However, conspiracy theorists to this day disagree with Larry's statement claiming that there were no firefighters in there to be pulled from WTC 7. That rebuttle is false but irrelevant anyway, beacause the fact still remains that "pull" is not a known demo term for bringing down a building by explosives but rather by use of CABLES. Therefore debunking that myth.

In conclusion to the "Siverstein" quote:


1) Larry and the cable guys (lol) obviously wouldn't snitch themselves out to the masses in front of live news cameras if they were really part of a "controlled demolition" insurance fraud. This kind of theory simply should not be mentioned by anyone who actually cares about being taken seriously.

2) "Pull it" isn't a known term in the demolition world for controlled demolition by use of explosives, it is however a known term to decribe bringing down a building with cables.

Part 6: But it looks so much like a classic controlled demolition?

Even though I already posted this video to prove a previous point earlier on, this footage still confirms that there are ZERO hallmarks of controlled demolition evident when reviewing the events of the WTC buildings.



People attempt to rebut this point by claiming that the controlled demolitions must have been new and innovative, therefore not showing signs of a classic demolition. This becomes confusing when realizing how many truthers claim that the collapses "look too much like a classic CD to be ignored"...You can't have your cake and eat it too, either it's new and innovative or it's classic. This rebuttal by conspiracy theorists also makes little to no sense because if it's SO easy to just conjure up a new amazing way to demolish a building without being detected by anyone, then why haven't the BEST people in the business discovered these methods and made countless amounts of money? Did the government just kidnap the best contolled demolition experts in the world, put them in a basement, and force them to invent something completely innovative that has never been heard of before in the demolition industry? If you honeslty believe that you need to be admitted to a mental hospital...

Implosionword.com is one of the most credible controlled demolition sites, with the most credible and relevant expert opinions available on the web regarding explosives. There is an overwhelmingly clear general consensus within the members of the site that a controlled demoltion could NOT have been used on the twin towers or WTC 7. Yet to no surprise blind truthers still use false claims by A&E "experts" (who virtually have no direct ties to controlled demoltions) to try and discredit the claims made by the real deals of the industry...

Here is the paper I found at Implosion World.com

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

Part 7: What about the thermate/thermite supposedly found?

In deed, the presence of iron, sulfure, aluminum, potassium, maganese,fluorine, and titanium in the WTC dust are all supported by USGS dust samples, and most are engredients of thermate. However the first thing any reasonable scientist would investigate is whether or not there are any natural (non-thermate related) sources for these chemicals. Although Steven Jones claims that he's found "uncommon chemical elements in abundance" nothing could be further from the truth.

The third most common ingredient in the World Trade Center construction was gypsum-based drywall, which is 18.62 sulfur. Iron is used in paint and electronic devices. Potassium is used in concrete. Manganese was used for structural steel, paint, batteries, and ceramics. Flourine is used in Freon. 200,000 pounds of Freon cooled the WTC complex. This was the largest air-conditioning system in the country. Titanium is used in paper and paint (both common at the WTC) and made up 2% of each of the 767's. WTC7 was also clad in polished steel and titanium. To claim that these were uncommon at the WTC,and that the only explanation for their presence is though the use of thermate, is an unbelievable joke.

The next thing any reasonable scientist would do is check that the elements are present in their correct, signature quantities. According to Steven Jones' own estimates, "about 1,000 pounds od explosives would be sufficient [per tower]". For both towers and WTC7, this would equal about 3,000 pounds of thermate. Thermate is 2% sulfur. This calculates out to about 60 pounds of sulfur. Approximately 1 million tons (2 billion pounds) of dust blanketed lower Manhatton. Based on Professor Jones' estimates, a thermite reaction would cause the WTC dust to be approximately 0.000003% sulfur. It's unlikely such a low perdentage would even be detactable, and certainly wouldnt account for USGS dust samples showing as much as 5.4 sulfur.

Finally, before claiming to have found the chemical signature of thermate in a sample, a reasonable scientist would ensure that all of the elements of thermate are present, and this is where Steven Jones' thermate claim completely, utterly falls apart.

The two main byproducts of thermate are aluminum oxide (41%) and barium nitrate (29%). Both are unique to thermate and would have no reason for being found at the WTC - except through the use of thermate. However, neither of the USGS nor Steven Jones himself report finding any traces of either of these elements.

Jones points to traces of aluminum, but there is a world of a difference between aluminum and aluminum oxide (which has 3 oxygen atoms), the aluminum was common through it's use in the WTC's facade, the 767's, and vehicles. The presence of these elements (in quantities consistant with the only with their natural use throughout the WTC complex), doesn't in any way support the use of thermate, and the lack of aluminum oxide and barium nitrate thoroughly disproves it.

On a final note here...

No building has EVER been demolished using thermite/thermate in mankind's history because it wouldn't be an efficient method of controlled demoliton by any stretch of the imagination. This is confirmed by Ron Craig (controlled demoltion expert from Toronto) and many other experts.

Part 8: Molten Steel, Molten metal?









Part 9: "Are all the people involved in Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, wrong?"


Around 1,500 architects and engineers worldwide have actually signed a petition expressing their support for the theory that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a controlled demoltion. Yet according to the U.S Department of Labor, there are 1,700,000 employed architects and engineers in the US alone (and probably 5 -10 times that worldwide). This means that less than 1 in 10,000 of the architects and engineers in the world have expressed any kind of support for this demolition theory. Rational people understand that if only 0.01% of the people in your field of expertise agree with you, then that should be clear indication of a "dud" idea. Valitidy of the NIST report has been a proven general consensus within the major scientific community.

Plus, If you consider the individuals involved in this A&E for 911 Truth movement you will find electrical engineers, software designers, landscapers etc. However, the number with actual relevant expertise and experience to high rise construction must be very small.

On the other hand the American Society of Civil Engineers, which supports NIST and whose members contributed, has about 120,000 members. Every developed country has a similar professional body. They also support the findings of NIST.

Richard Gage is the founder of A&E for 911 Truth.

So...

What type of childish mind thinks it's possible to rig a building up with explosives for months, with hundreds/thousands of men on the job day in and day out, and not have anyone notice or blow the cover at any time over the course of 10 years?








I rest my case..


Last edited by SkepticOfLies : 06-21-2011 at 09:13 PM. Reason: Typos
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.