WTC7 - The smoking gun in 9/11 conspiracy

[Scepcop]

If the WTC controlled demolition theory is ridiculous, as you disinfo people claim, then would Europe's top demolitions expert say that it was controlled demolition? DUH!

[Scepcop]

Jeff from Canada called Danny Jowenko to check whether the rumors from the skeptics about him changing his mind about Building 7 were true. It turned out that the skeptics were just spreading disinformation again, as usual.

[ProfWag]

Again, very interesting indeed Scepcop. From my research, Danny Jowenko was and is the only demolition expert to believe that the buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition. He was shown a video and formulated his opinion based on that video from one angle. I understand he has since viewed others and still maintains that it was controlled. So, good on you! You found someone who supports your ideas! From the best of my knowledge, Mr. Jowenko did not study anything other than videos and photos to formulate his opinion. True or False?
Next, I would like to counter your input with input from Mr. Brent Blanchard. Mr. Blanchard's credentials and final report can be found here:
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20 ... 8-8-06.pdf

[Scepcop]

[highflyertoo]

The difference with the WTC 7 is the building collaspes from the ground . How could fire weaken the ground steel beams when the building is primarily designed to withstand an Inferno?

If it's so easy to cause structal buildings to collaspe from mini fires , then the terrorists only reqire a matchstick to defeat highly technical advanced societies.

It's the End of the World as we know it . REM

[Nostradamus]

[Scepcop]

Check out this new video by AE911Truth.org. Listen to what all these expert engineers have to say about Building 7! Wow. It'll make your jaw drop. You won't deny that there's something wrong with the official story after watching this. No way.

[Craig Browning]

PLEASE, Get a Life!

This stuff is just paranoid rhetoric and has absolutely no basis in fact, let alone plausibility.

It would be physically impossible to smuggle that much ubber strong explosive and set it properly without any kind of suspicion being raised; far too many people to manage, far too big an endeavor and it would cost tens of millions of dollars to pull off. In short, too many tattle-tales and risks. Even if someone was cooking up such a conspiracy, using an airliner would still be the most efficient, cost effective method of doing the greatest amount of destruction. So let's just say whoever the real bad guys were, stole a couple of airliners and crashed them into a couple of big buildings, the pentagon and a farm filed in Maryland or whatever and leave it at that. . . simple is usually right.

Unfortunately, the simpler the method the easier it is for the pseudo-intellect to think otherwise and invent dozens of hypothetical routes of travel. You'd be amazed as to how many different explanations I've heard people come up with when it comes to some of the stage magic I've done over the years; ALL OF THEM WRONG! Even amongst "veteran magicians" that thought they were 'in the know' (it's nearly impossible to know "it all" when it comes to magic)

I will lay a year's income on the fact that no one planted explosives in any of the WTC property.

[ProfWag]

Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

[Craig Browning]

[Scepcop]

None of you watched the video. It was flawless. Totally irrefutable.

NIST is a proven farce. They never looked for explosives even though many heard them. They admitted it too. They cannot explain the free fall and lack of resistance either. They were stumped under scrutiny. They made up their minds before their fake investigation.

Why do you consider NIST to be objective and truth seeking? lol

Watch the frickin video! It's irrefutable and contains many structural engineers who know a lot more than you guys.

[Arouet]

[Craig Browning]

[Scepcop]

Here is a letter I wrote to a friend after he said that he was unconvinced by the 9/11 conspiracy arguments and found the defense of the official story of 9/11 more persuasive. In it, I list some important key points and questions for him to consider, which I think those of you sitting on the fence here will find revealing.

-------------------------------------------------

Steve,
A few key questions and important points. Before we parted, you said that you aren't convinced by the arguments about whether the fires were hot enough to melt steel or not. Well, if we had more time, this is what I would have emphasized to you:

- Yes the fires were not hot enough to melt steel technically, but it's a moot point, cause even if they did melt the steel, how do you remove hundreds of thousands of tons of resistance from steel and concrete, on the 100+ floors below the impact points of the WTC? What I mean is, the twin towers could not have collapsed that fast, no matter what melted. The 110 floors provided a lot of resistance which could not have evaporated and turned to air. It's totally impossible and no one has explained it. Especially considering the fact that the north tower was hit at the very top. How does the very top floor pulverize 110 floors below it as though it were thin air? It's 100 percent impossible.

- Also keep in mind that a building collapsing from fire, does so in a GRADUAL manner with UNEVEN deformations, with the building eventually falling over SIDEWAYS, NOT straight down. Do you understand the HUGE difference there? The WTC did NOT collapse that way at all. It collapsed in 11 seconds.

- Besides, if one could destroy whole skyscrapers just by lighting a few floors on fire, then the demolition company would be out of business, since no explosive charges that takes months to set up, would be necessary. All you'd need is kerosene and a few matches. Have you considered that?

- Have you seen the collapse of Building 7, which was NOT hit by a plane? It's considered the smoking gun. It was a 47 story skyscraper made of the best materials. Yet it collapsed in 5 seconds. The government says it collapsed from fire. But have you seen the collapse? If not, look at it and tell me if it looks like a fire collapse. Here:



Here is that new professional video I told you about from AE911Truth.org featuring MANY structural engineers, scientists and demolition experts talking about the collapse of Building 7 and why the official explanation is WRONG. You need to watch it. It's so compelling that it will change your mind if you listen to every words of it. It's a MUST SEE.



Btw, the debunkers have NEVER explained the free fall collapse of Building 7. They simply tried to muddle the waters, cause they CANNOT explain a free fall speed collapse by fire. In fact, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), which was commissioned by the US government, ADMITTED that they could not account for the free fall of Building 7, so they just ignored it. And they ADMITTED that they NEVER even looked for evidence of explosives either, since they already MADE UP their mind from the beginning that ONLY fire could be the cause of the collapse. (since that's what they were ordered to do obviously)

With such damning admissions from NIST, why do you say you trust them and consider them to have explained everything sufficiently, when in reality, they can't answer any important questions and run away from evidence presented?

For example, NIST said there was no molten metal found under the WTC 7 rubble. But many people said they saw it, including fire fighters. Have a look at what they said below. These are good honest Americans, just like you, so why do you ignore their evidence?



Thermal heat imaging from the air also detected molten metal in the WTC rubble as well.

Again, keep in mind that a building collapsing from fire, does so in a GRADUAL manner with UNEVEN deformations, with the building eventually falling over SIDEWAYS, NOT straight down. Do you understand the HUGE difference there? Building 7 did NOT collapse that way at all. It collapsed in 5 seconds at near free fall speed.

I know we all have our biases, including me, but how do you explain all this when you factor it in? Yes it's disturbing. But like Richard Gage said, you gotta follow the evidence (and the money especially) and let the chips fall where they may.

I really urge you to watch the film I recommended to you long ago, called "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11" when you have time. It's only 100 minutes, and is the BEST documentary on 9/11 ever. It was made by a member of the European Parliament and features Nobel Prize Winners. Once you watch it, your mouth will drop open and you will be stunned, as you slap your head and wonder, "How could I have been so gullible?!" Guaranteed. Here is the link to see it.

Full length here:


Trust me. All these clips and films are a MUST SEE. I would not ask you to see them if they weren't important and worthy of your time. Once you see them and follow the evidence, you will understand why. The case will be much more clear to you than before.

Regards,
Winston

[Scepcop]