WTC Collapses

I imagine so that it doesn't hit anything? The idea being that you'd get a bit of warning time before actually hitting the building (perhaps a little visibility?). In any case, Leslie Robertson has made a bunch of claims. Did he actually come up with this before 9/11 or did he just make it up afterwards? shaman_ has said Leslie made no actual analysis to back up his claims. Apparently some, such as a NOVA program, have also tried to claim that he was the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers, when in fact John Skilling was.

John Skilling, the -actual- lead in the design of the WTC buildings, -did- do an analysis which apparently made it clear that 707s wouldn't cause the buildings to collapse (no mention of fog in his claim), but NIST says that his analysis has gone 'missing'. If the buildings were indeed an inside job, this would be 'convenient' indeed for the insiders. Ofcourse, well done analysis have been done since as well, by experts such as Steven Jones and they certainly agree that no plane crash, along with ensuing fires could have brought the bulidings down.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you know it wasnt done to take down a destryed building that was dangerous situation to just leave and let it come down when it feels like it. That is even if it was a controlled demo done long after the initial event. Either way to me it is not relevant and just a strawman to hang onto.

Your conclusion that it severly compromises the official story is nonsense. The government (any government) may not tell the public every single detail because of people like yourself and the other conspiracy buffs who may not be intellectually suited to understand. You have to remeber that just because you dont understand something does not mean it did not happen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why would everyone lie about it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If i owned those buildings i know that they would be much more valuable to leave them standing and not destroy them, AT ALL. Does this make sense to you?

 

lie about what?

 

This post is in response to John's post 442 in this thread.

For starters, -absolutely no one- is claiming this at this point. At the very least, you would have to admit that the american people have been lied to for 7 years now as to why WTC 7 collapsed. Not only that, but official government reports have been made claiming that the cause of the collapse was -not- due to controlled demolition. This isn't to say that the WTC 7 collapse wasn't the most suspicious of the bunch. Even a controlled demolition expert is on record as saying that it was a controlled demolition. Since he's not a U.S. resident, he was actually unaware that it occured on 9/11 and was quite surprised to find out.

The government's story that it wasn't a controlled demolition is quite weak. It's also well known that they never tested for thermite.

It would, if they were to actually admit that it -was- a controlled demolition. As it is, their story is still quite feeble.

If by "intellectually suited", you mean intellectually and politically dangerous to the people who were truly behind 9/11, I agree. We would immediately apply this confession towards further pressuring the government to admit that all 3 WTC buildings were controlled demolitions. That would only be the beginning, ofcourse. The next issue would be who had the ability to pull such demolitions off...

I agree completely. I also sincerely hope you take that advice to heart.

 

Perhaps i am not being clear, although i dont know haw many different ways to make it any easier to understand.

How did the collapse of building 7 have any bearing whatsoever to the events that transpired after. In other words, what was gained by taking this building down? A building that was severly damaged already.

No i mean just what i said.

 

I do, that is why i said it.

 

why would everyone lie about the demolition of wtc7 ?

 

I didnt say anyone lied about it. The question was what was the benefit and how would taking it down (building 7) deliberately have any bearing whatsoever on the outcome. Everyone can see that the building was destroyed before it collapsed.

Logic cannot be taught so this is becoming a lot like spitting in the wind.

 

Motive can frequently be difficult to determine. However, the following articles mentioned at whatreallyhappened.com by certainly offer many possibilities:
**************************
The collapse of WTC 7 also profited Silverstein Properties to the tune of ~$500 million through insurance payments.

[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]
**************************

I think you would have been better off saying "you forgot the last 2 words in that sentence", that is, "to understand". I had felt you meant this anyway, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. In any case, what do you believe that people like myself wouldn't understand? The motives for taking down the building? That they were acting nobly but are afraid that their actions will be misconstrued? Perhaps in their minds they were acting nobly. That they were vacinating America from truly horrific terrorism by giving them a little light home grown terrorism masquerading as foreign terrorism so that America would be ready to take the war to the terrorists. And if they profited a little on the side, well, they're only human, right?

Ofcourse, there is a darker possibility; the U.S. war machine had gone (relatively) hungry during the Clinton years, U.S. officials in high places wanted to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11, Israel could use a boost for its justifications to oppress the palestinians (gotta get tough on terrorism); in essence, that elements in the U.S. government and perhaps others (elements of Israel's Mosad for instance) were propping up the war on terror to get things going again

 

ok backtrack a bit, in post 433 you asked:
"even if building 7 was a controlled demo (to take down a destroyed building) what significance is that?"

my response is, if it was a demoltion to destroy a damaged building, then why would everyone lie about it? why not just say "building 7 needed to be demolished because of the damage", but they didn't - they ALL said it wasn't a demoltion.

you know if a policeman asks you if you have seen a mr Joe Bloggs, if you resond with "i didn't rape and kill him", what do you think the policeman would be thinking?

 

The insurance would get paid even if the buiding did not completely collapse (that is how insurance works) and to go even further an undamaged buiding can be sold or just collect the prodigious amounts of rents from it.

As far as containing government secrets or whatever you are imagining - they just would have sent people in to deal with it. Would have taken a few hours to accomplish.

Are you guys still in high school or something? And i am being serious so dont take that the wrong way.

 

This post is in response to Headspin's post 452 in this thread.

It seems to me that John actually did answer this question when responding to one of my posts. From his post 442:
The government (any government) may not tell the public every single detail because of people like yourself and the other conspiracy buffs who may not be intellectually suited to understand. You have to remember that just because you dont understand something does not mean it did not happen.

I'm not sure if that argument would really apply here. Sure, the official story is that controlled demolition didn't occur, but as far as I know, this was in response to questions; as in:

Question: Did WTC 7 come down due to controlled demolition?

Official Answer: No


And not as in:

Question: What happened to WTC 7?

Official Answer: We didn't take it down by controlled demolition.

 

i have no idea what you are talking about. I am not going to analyze some fictitious police officer or his reponse, i will leave the conjecture up to you and Scott.

 

why would eveyone lie about it?

 

oh, i mean scott3x.

 

you said 'everyone' was lying. still has no bearing on the main points.

just more strawmen.

 

This post is in response to John99's post 453 in this thread.

I think this whole issue deserves more investigation. Here's what I got from 9/11 Research's article "Controlling Interests":
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

You seem to be claiming he would have gotten 861$ million regardless of whether or not the building had collapsed. You say this is how insurance works. Can you point out evidence to back up that claim?

It seems that you are also suggesting (just in case you are mistaken in that claim), that Silverstein could simply collect the prodigious amounts of rent from the building. I sincerely believe, however, that he could have made $500 million dollars in profit in the time it took him to build the WTC 7 replacement. I personally have noted that the WTC 7 replacement looks much snazzier. Perhaps he can collect even more rent now...

What are you referring to? Setting up the demolition charges and demolishing the building?

No, I'm not in high school. I'm actually about 2 1/2 years older then you are, assuming your profile is accurate.

 

Scott, that is how insurance works. You really dont know this?