Okay, before we even argue about how the WTC7 was brought down can we please examine the reasons why someone would even want to?

Okay, lets see, if the goal is to scare American's into wanting a war with Iraq, it sure seems to me that collapsing two giant 110 story buildings would do it. Why screw around collapsing some small building that won't even really get news attention. Why do that? If you claim they are hiding something, why even risk hiding something right next to the towers? Was it just for the conspirators to have an extra little laugh at the end. Was it so people would suspect a conspiracy?

This is my opinion of course... but i think until someone has an excellent reason for even wanting to implode WTC7 i will never even believe someone would waste their time trying to demo it.

Watching a building fall in 6 seconds into its own footprint with all the classic hallmarks of a controlled demolition does not mean I/we have any answers to your questions. It means WE have serious questions WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED!!! The destruction of a multitude of documents relating to serious fraud enquiries which involve billions of dollars is itself one motive but speculation in order to answer people like you is not why we are here. It is US that want answers. WE have questions. WE want an enquiry!!!!!

Interesting Points About WTC7

OK let's start with the basics........

WTC7 collapsed at 5:20pm on 9/11 and is rarely if at all mentioned in the mainstream media anymore. There are any people who don't remember or who didn't even know that it had collapsed.

Now WTC7 did receive damage to the SW corner from falling debris from the North Tower and it had fires burning on floors 8, 11, 12, 13 and 18 though the fires did not burn evenly. Which doesn't do anything to help explain this........



Now let's get a little more interesting.........

Here is a video of Danny Jowenko who is a Controlled Demolition Expert. He had never even heard of WTC7 until this footage was shot so his reaction to the video of the collapse is unprejudiced. His reaction and words are very telling. Sorry it's not in English but there are subtitles.

Click Here

Now even more interesting.........

WTC7 was home to the CIA, Dept of Defense, IRS, Secret Service, Rudy Giuliani's emergency bunker and the SEC. The SEC had around 4,000 files on different Wall Street investigations including the Enron scandal.

The floors that were on fire in order...

8 - The American Express Bank
11 - The SEC
12 - The SEC
13 - Salomon Smith Barney, Provident Financial Management, American Express Bank International, Securities & Exchange Commission, Standard Chartered Bank
18 - Salomon Smith Barney, United States Equal Opportunity Commission

This Branch of the CIA was the headquarters for the joint FBI/CIA investigation into Al-Qaeda.

Standard Charter Bank was used by Omar Sheikh Sheed to wire $100,000 to hijacker Mohamed Atta.

These offices of the SEC would also be ground zero for preemptive investigation into pre 9/11 insider trading. According to officials from the SEC most of the cases filed at WTC7 were either scrapped or postponed for a great length of time.

For your consideration,

http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/

If you google examples of husbands murdering wife, some of those stories show the husband made a life insurance policy on his wife couple of months/weeks back. Some examples.
So in such an example if the husband just wanted to get rid of the wife why did he even insure his wife?

Your question is just like that.
Its not just OIL

Its killing 2 birds with one bullet.
------------------------------------------
Do you really expect the admisntration not to try to cover up the reason for brining down WTC-7? There are several reasons which are suspcious but I dont want to comment on the reasons.

Cus the point is - whether you find a reason for brining down WTC-7 or not, asymmetrically fires and asymmetrical damage doesn't cause a straight down collapse and hence its a controlled demolition.

This is a sensitive subject, troofers don't like to have to explain the logic because there isn't any.

We're supposed to believe there has been a massive cover up about 911, particularly of evidence of CD at ground zero, yet somehow if a few papers were left at WTC7 they would have been picked up by investigators and blown the whole story? How does that make sense?

We're supposed to believe that information on options trades are printed out on little pieces of paper and filed away at WTC 7? Not electronically stored off site with multiple redundancy?

We're supposed to believe that they wanted to destroy Enron documents when the top executives on Enron went on to be convicted and imprisoned?

We're supposed to believe that out of control fires for several hours wouldn't have been a good reason to say documents were destroyed, only collapsing the building would do it?

We're supposed to believe that even though all the other WTC buildings had severe fire damage and were eventually demolished, somehow this manual demolishing wasn't good enough for WTC 7 and they had to go to enormous trouble to arrange beam weapons from outer space to bring it down?

Why do you think that when you ask question about the logic, people rush in to repeat the standard CD conspiracy theory?

There's no need to speculate why the building was demolished, this only serves to distract from the physical features of the building's collapse that indicate controlled demolition, and none of these features has ever been observed in the natural collapse of a steel-framed building

Please give some examples of the natural collapse of a steel frame building so we can see what features are normally involved. I'm sure you'll have many examples, its not like you would just make things up to sound authoritative.

Indeed. I for one have never actually seen any other two 110 story buildings collapse right next to other buildings, my guess would be there would be a whole lot of energy being released from the terrific potential energy stored in the buildings and as a result it'd be kinda silly to say you'd know what exactly would happen to stuff around this energy release.

so john, you're saying that you can never believe a crime was committed, even if you have overwhelming reason to believe it, because you cannot fathom the motive for committing it?

Nice investigative work. please don't quit your day job.

indeed, why did buildings directly next to WTC 7 which were damaged more severly, not fall?

I see no overwhelming reason to believe it, i see no evidence for it either except a few videos from the outside of a building when it fell which is pretty far from hard evidence. I don't recall any evidence found at the scene to support explosives or the like either.

I did though see two gigantic buildings fall right next to this WTC7 building.

I'm going to have to take a guess and say that these other buildings weren't actually more severly damaged at least not structurally.

Good luck with that.

like the caveman said in the geicko commercial

"Maybe next time do a little research..."

Photos of WTC 3 After Tower Collapses

Photos of Buildings 5 and 6 from Post Office Building

I apologise, I didn't read this thread until now but I thought i'd comment on this. This is silly, you are comparing a 22 story building which was reduced initially to this:

then to this:

with a 47 story office building with specific weaknesses highlighted by NIST

WTC 5 and 6 were 9 and 8 storys each and WTC6 was in fact weak enough after collapse to be pulled over with a few cables.

Comparing these buildings to WTC7 is silly, not only were their structures initially supporting significantly lower loads but they were so significantly damaged by the collapses to be reduced to small sections of their initial structure. Indeed WTC6 was so damaged that explosive demolition was rejected for fear the people setting charges would risk their lives.

Frankly comparing 3,5 or 6 to 7 is ludicrous and just bad research or reasoning.

hardly... the argument was presented that WTC7 had so much damage that it COULD NOT STAND, and MUST COME DOWN

And this proves that buildings much MORE SEVERELY DAMAGED, will stand until PURPOSELY BROUGHT DOWN.

It's a logically valid point to counter the argument made by the original poster.

No it isn't, the buildings are simply not comparable. If I build a small pile of jenga blocks and then take out 50% of them, should it fall? what about 80%? Can I prove building collapses false by modelling mass removal in jenga?

Of course not, because the forces and weights involved are not comparable, and neither is the damage suffered.

Typical bad science denier answer: evidence doesn't fit, so throw it out. Prof. Jones has a great comic strip, BC, showing the caveman making his conclusion that no two snowflakes are alike. Then two snow flakes float past, apparently exactly alike. He squashes one of them, much like you've just squashed 3, 5, 6. Damaged, didn't fall. Doesn't fit. Does not compute...

This is one idea, feel free to come up with a better idea. Just, please do not tell us this bldg fell from a kerosene fire.

To play devil's advocate, I think the weak point here for truthers is - why would they collapse WTC 7, if 1 & 2 were implausible enough, 7 was all the more so? (although it probably amazes the architects of 11th Sept to this day - the gullibility of the people, and the power of the MSM changing the dynamics from "looks like a controlled demolition" to "fires caused structural damage")

Was the 4th plane supposed to hit 7, so it was like a bomb waiting to go off?

Or Congress?

I think the Reichstag fire provides an interesting insight: with Congress out of the way, martial law in place, and all "enemies" under arrest (Nazi's arrested 4000 people in the aftermath of the Reichstag fire), it _wouldn't_matter_one_bit.

Or, a gigantic screw up?

I'm with the Enron, SEC files. But not very convinced. Why not simply set a fire and burn all the incriminating stuff in the confusion?

And as for the backup tapes, you're exactly right, who doesn't keep backup copies of important docs? The plot does thicken a bit - when apparently, there were *no* backups for the trial documentation. Could be just plain poor planning. You know, the incompetents in the govt, the same folks that were handed briefings about hijackers and did nothing, went on vacation alot, and didn't make backups. Fancy that.

the most plausible motive would be the court cases that are now lost.. but who knows? if you need to know the why in order to question the how then you mine as well go to some other forum and not waste time here..

If there were any evidence to prove any sort of controlled demolition I'd be more able to believe some sort of a conspiracy plot. But a video of a building falling and some comments from people with adrenaline pumping and not experts in explosives or demolition saying they heard "explosions", which can be easily explained by other phenomena at the time isn't cutting it for me. And also I believe it'd be logistically nearly impossible to pull this off with not one single leak to the public about it.

In a court of law you need more than speculation about how things were done and you need hard evidence to prove something and the same holds true for me. If someone could find some hard evidence and prove without a doubt what happend, I'd certainly believe it. I'm not out to prove anyone wrong on this, I just don't see any conspiracy, at the most I see a few coincidences.

Haha the very fact you're accusing me of this is hilarious. You are trying to argue that former 22 story buildings reduced to a tiny corner of itself and two 8 and 9 story buildings are comparable to a 47 story structure?

No more laughable than you saying this;

about this;



e^n would argue that the side by side images of an apple and a apple core were the same thing. Only the apple core was shot at such an angle as to distort it so it didn't look like a whole apple any longer.

MM

I guess it depends on one's understanding of certain fundamentals in logic.

I was proving his point invalid, not proving that WTC7 shouldn't have fallen. He said that due to structural problems from debris crashing down, it was doomed. WEll, a lot more debris fell on other buildings, and they were like 80% destroyed in some cases, and the portions left not destroyed, were still s tanding.

You can say it's not logically valid, but you'd need to re-educate yourself on logic fundamentals.

Your purpose here, like all other jref/skeptics, is to confuse issues to the piont where people give up trying to understand the issues.

It's a great trick, I must admit. But not everyone falls for it.

Your logic is that if one building is damanged and falls, all buildings which are damaged must fall. This is lame.

Some CD's go wrong, and they fail to collapse. You are making this sound impossible - if you set off demolition charges in a building, it must fall. Yes, usually it does. Not always.

no, you are trying to confuse my meaning... thinking you understand it is an absurd assumption on your part.

Someone said, that if Building X was damaged Y amount, that it must have result Z.

Logic dictates that if this is going to be assumed true, that all buildings of similar construction which are also damaged at least as much as building X, by an amount equal or greater than Y, that it will have at least the same result of Z or greater result.

Saying otherwise defies the laws of reason.

Proof:

If building X is damaged to degree Y, then it should fall.
If building Z is damaged >=Y, then it should also fall.

Proving that building Z was damaged greater than building X does not necissarily prove that it should have fallen. Rather, it only proves that the first assumption is false "building X should have fallen due to the damage observed". This is further reinforced by the fact that the other buildings did not completely collapse on their own within a similar time frame as building X.

If you don't agree, go find a logician and ask him. (Hint: I am one.)

The only option for getting out of this theoretically proven truth is to argue that the smaller buildings were not constructed in the same manner. Of course they were smaller. Of course they could not bare the same loads as WTC7. But saying they are weaker actually further reinforces the theory that WTC7 should not have fallen.


Proof:

Building X has strength of N.
Building Z has strength < N.
Building Z was damaged to a degree > building X.
If building X falls, then Building Z should also fall.
Building Z did not fall.

Therefore, Builing X should not have fallen.

Of course, in reality, one would have to later conclude that WTC 7 (building x) would have been damaged worse than the others. Since the visual evidence of known damage does not account for this, there is only one valid conclusion left.

An outside force (inside the building of course) caused more damage to WTC7 than could be observed from the outside.

The discussion should then lead us to debate, yet again, whether the fires in relatively small corners of the structure, were not only enough to weaken the steel, but do so uniformly and cause a relatively symetrical collapse, and at free-fall speed.

If that is not proven to be true, by a study of the actual structure itself, then it is perfectly reasonable to look to explosives for the cause of the additional damage not attributed to falling debris from the towers.

Since the evidence was quickly removed and is not inaccessible to independent investigators, one must only conclude that a cover-up has taken place to hide the true reason the building fell.

Please, go find a logician who can refute what i've spelled out for you. If I am sorely mistaken, I would love to have someone prove it.

WTC 3,5,6 were not constructed in a similar manner to WTC 7.

Define damage, by what do we measure the degree of damage. What units do we use?

What is strength measured in here?

Your very knowledge of logic is lacking, these are not logical arguments as no sane person believes that a building can be abstracted to two numerical values, strength and damage. Even your simplistic example is riddled with holes, there is no simplistic formula for building damage vs chance of falling.

I hope it would not, as your knowledge of logic is so astoundingly poor you have made the argument that additional quantities of damage are required from internal explosives.

My question to you is prove it, you apparently have two values for strength and damage so should be able to calculate the damage incurred in the other 3 cases, convert that into SI units and give us a target amount of energy that is required. Are you prepared to do this?

Your mistakes do not require proving wrong, they require brief examination to understand that your entire premise is faulty. Buildings can not be abstracted to X and Y and 3,5,6 + 7 are not even remotely comparable.

The problem with your logic is that one can't quantify damage with a number. One building could be damaged more than another, but in a different way. Let's say you have two identical 10-story buildings, building A and B.
On building A, you severely damage the top 5 floors.
On building B, you severely damage a wedge out of the bottom-right side.

(x's represent what has been damaged, vertical bars represent what is still intact)

Building A:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |


Building B:

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | x
| | | | | | | | | | xxx
| | | | | | | | xxxxxx
| | | | | | xxxxxxxxx
| | | | | xxxxxxxxxx
| | | xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Using your logic, if Building A does not collapse, then Building B also should not collapse, as it has sustained less damage. I realize these are not actually representative of the WTC buildings; I am not making a case-specific point. I am only saying that damage can occur in ways that cannot be quantified simply by percentages.

If the two of you cannot see what you're doing, by implying that one must prove that a building is damaged more than another with a quantitative value, is ludicrous...

Can a reasonable person not look at photos of each building and conclude which is damaged more?

Your insistance on having a methematical model to illustrate the forces involved is not deterent to one's ability to see simple logic with their own two eyes.

Again, this is a lesson in logic. The art of reasoning. Not mathematics or engineering.

In conclusion, what the two of you ARE saying, is that the small amount of damage done to WTC7 must somehow necessitate it's complete, global, symetrical collapse, but that having a fucking building land on the others may or may not cause it to fall.

GOtcha!

Again, go find a skilled logician who can argue your points for you.

So I take it you didn't notice that I said this:

The units matter not. It is an abstract value whic his easily measured by one's own two eyes by looking at the photos posted in this thread. If you think that 7 was damaged more than the others, you're retarded.

Where are the holes? Again, I didn't claim to prove that building seven could not have fallen, or that the others should have, only that the original claim made, that 7 was damaged so much that based solely on one's observation of the damage, that it should have fallen, is absolutely false.

It's a step by step process, coming to a conclusion like that. I didn't just say, "SEE THERE MUST HAVE BEEN EXPLOSIVES". I laid out the steps I took to come to that conclusion. Which premises were false premises? Specifically, where is the invalid conclusion?

Again, this is simple reason, not math or engineering. We could calculate it merely on the percentage of the building destroyed, which I agree would not be a definitive comparison, since damage near the base is more relevant than damage at the top. But come on.. Just look at the f-ing buildings!

It does not take a precise measurement to conclude that the others were damaged more than 7.

Huh? So that is how you run an investigation? Look into motive before examining the body and determining cause of death? Yeah, sound real logical. :rolleyes:

You people don't have one working brain between the lot of you.

what do you think of Avrel Lavigne's and e^n's critique of my arguments?

look-up, I believe your logic is sound, however, i believe you are misapplying that logic. As e^n says, you must have some sort of value on this "damage" and "strength". And your conclusion that pictures are enough to assess damage from the outside of a building is ridiculous. What if i built a sky scraper but it was only actually a shell, no interior parts at all and a strong wind came and it fell over, from the outside it wouldn't make any sense. If one knew from the inside that there was no support it would then make sense.

Have a look at space shuttles. Shuttles lose tiles all the time on take-off and reentry, Columbia also lost tiles on take off yet couldn't reenter the atmosphere. All other shuttles could even when they had less tiles. If you apply your logic of which shuttles had more damage then Columbia should not have been destroyed and others should have. Now if we apply some sort of a value to damage we will see that tiles lost on the leading wing surface are more important than and have greater value than tiles on the top of the shuttle. Just as damage to a building in one area will be less or more destructive than damage done to another area, EVEN if it's not apparently from a visible inspection from the outside.

What do I think? You nailed it.

Emphasis mine.

So, obiously I believe their "critique" to be absurd.

In the absence of ANY real evidence to prove it was intentionally "brought down", what other point of view should I take?

This absence only exists in your imagination. That is our whole point.

Yeah, those seismographs must be pretty mis-calibrated to miss those explosions...