9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details

[MasterPo]

Just for the sake of sh*ts&giggles let's assume you're 100% correct and all the 9/11 conspiracies about it being a GW plot, Israel helping, all Jews warned to leave the towers, remote control planes and cruise missles, controlled demolitions etc etc etc are true.

All the blame for this is being layed at the feet if Islam and arabs.

So where is the Islamic and arab communitties rising up and yelling from the highest hill tops "Hey, we did not do it! We are being framed for this!!!"????????

I am defend by the silence in this regard.

[The-Doctor]

I have a question solely for Q24 here: Suppose you are correct about every claim you have made concerning the destruction of the World Trade Center Complex, why then, is it much more improbable and unsubstantiated to believe that it was in fact a Terrorist Organization, the same one who commandeered the planes into the towers, who also in fact infiltrated positions within the personnel at the WTC before the attacks, secretly planted demolition devices within the buildings, and set them off at the time of the plane crashes, then it is to believe that the United States Government itself plotted these attacks?

[flyingswan]

Q24, basically, all of that "improbable" and "impossible" stuff is just your opinion of how structures work and how they fail, based on your non-existant study of the subject. This one alone:

reached temperatures high enough to one by one severely weaken structural columns below the penthouse (impossible).

would imply that fire in a damaged structure could never lead to a collapse. I admit that there is a lot "unsubstantiated" about how badly the building was damaged, but I don't see anything I've said that is inconsistent with the evidence. In particular, the lack of reported explosions before the collapse and the way the penthouse went a few seconds before the rest of the building are the key facts that fit my theory but not CD.

As I am correct, a better question would be: what does it take to convince you that you are wrong? I can dispute your fairytale all day long. You cannot with an open mind dispute that a controlled demolition would cause the collapse of WTC7 we see.

I asked the question first. If you cannot give an answer, you have a belief with no rational foundation.

For me to consider changing my mind, I'd like some rationale for how the penthouse collapse fits in with the CD theory, I'd like to see some evidence for explosions immediately preceding the collapse, I'd like some witnesses who worked in the building and noticed the building being prepped, I'd like to know how a CD set-up would function after being exposed to several hours of fire, I'd like to know why the firefighters thought the building was dangerous before the hypothetical CD.

Edited August 29, 2007 by flyingswan

[Sunofone]

So where is the Islamic and arab communitties rising up and yelling from the highest hill tops "Hey, we did not do it! We are being framed for this!!!"????????

I am defend by the silence in this regard.

do you speak arabic?

if your answer was no then you have absolutely no idea what is being yelled from any hilltop-- compound this with the FACT that bin laden was a CIA asset code named "tim ossmand" who once lived in false church virginia and would have surely further confused the situation

[Belial]

edited for personal reasons...

Edited August 31, 2007 by belial

[MasterPo]

if your answer was no then you have absolutely no idea what is being yelled from any hilltop-- compound this with the FACT that bin laden was a CIA asset code named "tim ossmand" who once lived in false church virginia and would have surely further confused the situation

ROTFLMAO!!!

Thanks, I needed that.

Don't you think in today's political climate where bashing Bush is the new great past-time if there was any (credible) source in the arab trumpeting that it wasn't islamic arabs who did 9/11 then CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Oprah, Rosie etc etc would be all over it? Or are Rosie, Oprah, CNN et. al. also on the Bush family payroll?

[Q24]

Just for the sake of sh*ts&giggles let's assume you're 100% correct and all the 9/11 conspiracies about it being a GW plot, Israel helping, all Jews warned to leave the towers, remote control planes and cruise missles, controlled demolitions etc etc etc are true.

I like that phrase – “sh*ts&giggles” You have to stop thinking of this as a GW plot though as that gives the man more credit than he is due. Elements of the US government (of which GW is only one member) assisted by intelligence agencies in the US and abroad would fit better.

So where is the Islamic and arab communitties rising up and yelling from the highest hill tops "Hey, we did not do it! We are being framed for this!!!"????????

I am defend by the silence in this regard.

As discussed in the “9/11 hijackers still alive” thread, we do have the men named as hijackers who came forward protesting their innocence that were surprisingly reported in our media.

Link here.

Not reported in the Western media is an interview Osama Bin Laden conducted with the Daily Ummat newspaper in Pakistan, in which he states "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.” The fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA thus likely infiltrated at the top levels by their agents would well explain the silence of other members of this organisation.

Link here.

In a letter to GW, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote, “September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services -- or their extensive infiltration?” This was from a head of state with nothing to lose by stating these things. I wonder how many other heads of state believe the same but choose to remain silent?

Link here.

Prior to and shortly after the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban consistently said it has not seen any convincing evidence to implicate the Saudi dissident (Osama Bin Laden) in any crime.

Link here.

So it is not all that silent if you look for news not widely reported in the Western media.

[Q24]

I have a question solely for Q24 here: Suppose you are correct about every claim you have made concerning the destruction of the World Trade Center Complex, why then, is it much more improbable and unsubstantiated to believe that it was in fact a Terrorist Organization, the same one who commandeered the planes into the towers, who also in fact infiltrated positions within the personnel at the WTC before the attacks, secretly planted demolition devices within the buildings, and set them off at the time of the plane crashes, then it is to believe that the United States Government itself plotted these attacks?

There are two main reasons: -

1. Supposing a terrorist organisation somehow managed to infiltrate WTC security and rigged the buildings for controlled demolition, why then go to the elaboration of hijacking and crashing planes into the buildings? Why would terrorists disguise a controlled demolition? Terrorists would not care by what method the buildings came down or who knows. So if terrorists were in a situation, primed for a controlled demolition, far simpler to just set off the demolitions and mission accomplished!

   The perpetrators though needed this distraction of crashing planes to disguise the controlled demolition. They needed it to stave people off from the only logical conclusion a controlled demolition would bring, the second point below.

2. Terrorists do not have the ability to carry out what would have been a well planned and highly covert operation. With questionable backgrounds and without high ranking security insiders they could not gain access to the WTC buildings. Terrorists would likely not have the expertise to carry out a controlled demolition and even if they did, would have trouble obtaining the required amount/type of explosives within the US. Only select expert groups with inside networks giving good access/cover could carry out a controlled demolition covertly – a ragtag band of men living in caves in the Middle East would not fall into this category.

[frenat]

As discussed in the “9/11 hijackers still alive” thread, we do have the men named as hijackers who came forward protesting their innocence that were surprisingly reported in our media.

Link here.

No, the correct thing to said is we had men coming forward protesting their innocence. It hasn't happened since September of 2001. All complaints ceased when the FBI released their final list with pictures. The only complaints came before that. That shows to me that once the official list came out with pictures that any confusion about who they really were ended. If somebody thought they were still being falsely accused why wouldn't they continue to complain? Maybe because they realize from the official list with pictures that it is not them being accused? Plus, if some hijackers had any chance of still being alive and therefore were not involved, why would Saudi Arabia publically admit that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

[Q24]

Q24, basically, all of that "improbable" and "impossible" stuff is just your opinion of how structures work and how they fail, based on your non-existant study of the subject. This one alone:

would imply that fire in a damaged structure could never lead to a collapse.

Contrary to your belief, I have done much reading/study on the subject and know what is/is not reasonable. These 2 reasons for starters, lead me to believe a collapse due to fire severely weakening the steel inside WTC7 was impossible: -

• In 2004, NIST tested floor models used in the WTC buildings, heating them in places to 700^oC. In no test did a collapse occur. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf

• Also 2004, NIST carried out an analysis of the structural steel from the WTC Towers. Specifically taking columns from the fire damaged area they found that 157 out of 160 locations mapped saw no temperature greater than 250^oC.

  http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandM...ysisofSteel.pdf

As well, an important note I think people miss – the heat of fire within a building does not indicate the heat at which any structural steel reached. For a fire burning to heat structural steel to the same temperature, would require a constant source of fuel and oxygen directly to the relevant area over a prolonged period.

I admit that there is a lot "unsubstantiated" about how badly the building was damaged, but I don't see anything I've said that is inconsistent with the evidence.

The problem is, you are not working on any evidence! Your whole idea of the collapse process is unsubstantiated, even the NIST studies above disagree with you. Based on video evidence of the building collapse characteristics, everything about it is clearly saying controlled demolition.

For me to consider changing my mind, I'd like some rationale for how the penthouse collapse fits in with the CD theory, I'd like to see some evidence for explosions immediately preceding the collapse, I'd like some witnesses who worked in the building and noticed the building being prepped, I'd like to know how a CD set-up would function after being exposed to several hours of fire, I'd like to know why the firefighters thought the building was dangerous before the hypothetical CD.

They are seriously the main things holding you back from accepting a controlled demolition took place? It seems you are so contented with your fairytale, you have put a mental block on answering the questions you raise above when really they are not difficult to answer.

The penthouse collapse fits in perfectly with a controlled demolition, where a sequence of explosives go off around the building weakening the structure before the main charges at the base of the building bring the structure down.

Evidence is there of explosions going off early at WTC7 in the original post of this thread and in this video, you just choose to disregard it. I believe these would be the explosions to initially weaken the building before possibly thermite/thermate reactions (which do not ‘explode’ as such) weakened the rest of the structure to collapse. The perpetrators of this controlled demolition would obviously not want loud explosions going off immediately prior to the collapse as that would completely give the game away!

Regarding the controlled demolition set-up reaction to fire, I earlier said - Tertiary explosives, also called blasting agents, are so insensitive to shock that they cannot be reliably detonated by practical quantities of primary explosive. That is to say - cannot be detonated by airliner impacts/fire. Then, rather than using a conventional detonator which could be set off by impact/fire, a chemical or electrical detonator is used

As for witnesses who worked in WTC7 noticing the building being prepped – you do understand the meaning of a covert operation? I have previously explained how the cover of a maintenance/security/removals team possibly working through night hours would raise no suspicion.

The firefighters thought the building was dangerous partly as the earlier explosions had weakened the structure and more importantly as some members knew it was about to be imploded. Watching this footage, how could anyone seriously predict, “keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon” without foreknowledge. In this same report, someone even says “the building is about to blow up”. Not “fall”, not “collapse”, but “blow up”.

I asked the question first. If you cannot give an answer, you have a belief with no rational foundation.

So you did ask first It would be an awfully long list of things you would have to prove to convince me the official story is true. Then even if you convinced me, I would label 9/11 the biggest coincidence of all time.

Regarding WTC7 though, if you can show there were extremely high temperature fires in the building (1,000^oC+), being constantly fed and which continuously heated sections of numerous columns on the whole East side of the building and that virtually symmetrical, freefall collapses occur from irregular damage, I would be impressed.

Oh, and a reasonable explanation of those Israeli Mossad agents arrested in New York for celebrating the implosion of the Twin Towers with a van full of explosives would go a long way to convincing me too. You failed miserably at explaining that away in your last attempt.

[Q24]

No, the correct thing to said is we had men coming forward protesting their innocence. It hasn't happened since September of 2001. All complaints ceased when the FBI released their final list with pictures.

No, as far as I am aware the FBI did not revise their list, removing from it the men who came forward. Neither did they alter the dates of birth or occupation which also matched that of the men who came forward. The profiles released of some hijackers matched one person but then the picture was of another individual. A clear case of false/faked identities. But perhaps best saving all this for the "9/11 hijackers still alive" thread.

[flyingswan]

Contrary to your belief, I have done much reading/study on the subject and know what is/is not reasonable. These 2 reasons for starters, lead me to believe a collapse due to fire severely weakening the steel inside WTC7 was impossible: -

• In 2004, NIST tested floor models used in the WTC buildings, heating them in places to 700^oC. In no test did a collapse occur. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf
• Also 2004, NIST carried out an analysis of the structural steel from the WTC Towers. Specifically taking columns from the fire damaged area they found that 157 out of 160 locations mapped saw no temperature greater than 250^oC.

  http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandM...ysisofSteel.pdf

As well, an important note I think people miss – the heat of fire within a building does not indicate the heat at which any structural steel reached. For a fire burning to heat structural steel to the same temperature, would require a constant source of fuel and oxygen directly to the relevant area over a prolonged period.

The problem is, you are not working on any evidence! Your whole idea of the collapse process is unsubstantiated, even the NIST studies above disagree with you. Based on video evidence of the building collapse characteristics, everything about it is clearly saying controlled demolition.

So that is your understanding of how fires affect structures? Look at what the NIST studies are actually studying: in the first case the effects of damage to the fireproofing on the steel and in the second measuring data points for validation of the collapse modelling. Neither is saying anything about fire alone causing collapse or the maximum temperatures actually reached in the fires. You still completely miss the point the I and Pericynthion have been trying to make for most of this thread: load re-distribution due to structural damage makes the structure vulnerable to further damage due to fire. The fire does not have to reach any specific temperature for this to be true, the remaining elements of a damaged structure can be carrying loads very close to their ultimate, so a small reduction in strength due to heating can be enough to cause fauilure.

They are seriously the main things holding you back from accepting a controlled demolition took place? It seems you are so contented with your fairytale, you have put a mental block on answering the questions you raise above when really they are not difficult to answer.

The penthouse collapse fits in perfectly with a controlled demolition, where a sequence of explosives go off around the building weakening the structure before the main charges at the base of the building bring the structure down.

Evidence is there of explosions going off early at WTC7 in the original post of this thread and in this video, you just choose to disregard it. I believe these would be the explosions to initially weaken the building before possibly thermite/thermate reactions (which do not ‘explode’ as such) weakened the rest of the structure to collapse. The perpetrators of this controlled demolition would obviously not want loud explosions going off immediately prior to the collapse as that would completely give the game away!

Regarding the controlled demolition set-up reaction to fire, I earlier said - Tertiary explosives, also called blasting agents, are so insensitive to shock that they cannot be reliably detonated by practical quantities of primary explosive. That is to say - cannot be detonated by airliner impacts/fire. Then, rather than using a conventional detonator which could be set off by impact/fire, a chemical or electrical detonator is used

As for witnesses who worked in WTC7 noticing the building being prepped – you do understand the meaning of a covert operation? I have previously explained how the cover of a maintenance/security/removals team possibly working through night hours would raise no suspicion.

The firefighters thought the building was dangerous partly as the earlier explosions had weakened the structure and more importantly as some members knew it was about to be imploded. Watching this footage, how could anyone seriously predict, “keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon” without foreknowledge. In this same report, someone even says “the building is about to blow up”. Not “fall”, not “collapse”, but “blow up”.

Up to now, you have been arguing that it was a CD because it looked like one. I produce a list of points showing how it differed from a CD and you come back with this preposterous slow-motion CD theory, unlike any real CD, with the explosions spread over hours to mimic a collapse due to damage and fire. As I said, your beliefs are immune to evidence.

So you did ask first It would be an awfully long list of things you would have to prove to convince me the official story is true. Then even if you convinced me, I would label 9/11 the biggest coincidence of all time.

Regarding WTC7 though, if you can show there were extremely high temperature fires in the building (1,000^oC+), being constantly fed and which continuously heated sections of numerous columns on the whole East side of the building and that virtually symmetrical, freefall collapses occur from irregular damage, I would be impressed.

Oh, and a reasonable explanation of those Israeli Mossad agents arrested in New York for celebrating the implosion of the Twin Towers with a van full of explosives would go a long way to convincing me too. You failed miserably at explaining that away in your last attempt.

I am not claiming that such temperatures are necessary for a collapse, though with the quantities of diesel fuel in the building there may well have been. I have explained at length how the final collapse came to resemble a CD - a real one, not your new slow-mo job.

You keep bringing up these Mossad agents, but you have signally failed to explain what you think they were doing with their explosives. If they were part of the CD operation, why weren't the explosives already in the buildings?

[Sunofone]

Up to now, you have been arguing that it was a CD because it looked like one.

NO we have weighed the evidence contained within the videos of the collapse and compounded it with the eye witness testiomony,prof steven jones conclusions and the fact that there is an ensuing cover-up-- you sir have failed to provide rebuttal from any scientific or academic source-- put up or shut up-- you cannot account for the collpase of 110 stories of concrete and steel falling without resistance end of debate PERIOD!!!!!

Edited September 1, 2007 by Sunofone

[MasterPo]

In a letter to GW, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote, <SNIP>

Yea, there's a pilar of honesty, integrety and objective study for the truth that's beyond reproach.

[The-Doctor]

There are two main reasons: -

1. Supposing a terrorist organisation somehow managed to infiltrate WTC security and rigged the buildings for controlled demolition, why then go to the elaboration of hijacking and crashing planes into the buildings? Why would terrorists disguise a controlled demolition? Terrorists would not care by what method the buildings came down or who knows. Correction: Yes They Would. Why? Well think of the entire purpose of their mission here: They are called TERRORISTS because they wish to create terror and unrest within a nation. Now, supposing they had decided to bring down the towers through ONLY CD, and then leave without the world knowing ANYTHING about who they were, their mission would NOT have been accomplished at all. The WTC is not some strategic location that needed to be destroyed for tactical purposes. The WTC was a sign of US economical power, and the WTC were some of the tallest buildings in the world. They wanted to humiliate the US. Think of how much more terrifying it would be to have huge planes crash into the building, and then declare your hostility to all of America, then to simply destroy the buildings and be done with it. They are TERRORISTS. Look up the definition of the word "terrorist". So if terrorists were in a situation, primed for a controlled demolition, far simpler to just set off the demolitions and mission accomplished!

   The perpetrators though needed this distraction of crashing planes to disguise the controlled demolition. They needed it to stave people off from the only logical conclusion a controlled demolition would bring, the second point below.

2. Terrorists do not have the ability to carry out what would have been a well planned and highly covert operation. With questionable backgrounds and without high ranking security insiders they could not gain access to the WTC buildings. Terrorists would likely not have the expertise to carry out a controlled demolition and even if they did, would have trouble obtaining the required amount/type of explosives within the US. Only select expert groups with inside networks giving good access/cover could carry out a controlled demolition covertly – a ragtag band of men living in caves in the Middle East would not fall into this category.

So you're basically saying that the terrorist organizations are just a bunch of cave men with zero technology and zero innovation. Apparently, Q24, they DID have the expertise required to bring down the towers. They had the ability to pose as citizens and hi-jack some of our own planes, by-passing our own internal security. Are you implying that everyone would notice THEM planting explosives in the towers, but not our own government??? And why do you think our government is working so hard to find and destroy them right now if they are not a threat?

[Sunofone]

The-Doctor Posted Today, 12:14 PM

So you're basically saying that the terrorist organizations are just a bunch of cave men with zero technology and zero innovation. Apparently, Q24, they DID have the expertise required to bring down the towers. They had the ability to pose as citizens and hi-jack some of our own planes, by-passing our own internal security. Are you implying that everyone would notice THEM planting explosives in the towers, but not our own government??? And why do you think our government is working so hard to find and destroy them right now if they are not a threat?

did you not watch the 9/11 segment of zeitgeist? rice and bush were both demonstrated to be liars by the repititous mantra of "no one could have envisioned flying planes into tall buildings" yet later had to admit they were actually running that exact scenario that day!! why would cheney through rumsfeld have removed shoot down authority in the weeks prior to 9/11? BLDG 7! molten steel! FREEFALL COLLAPSES!,fake binladen tapes,put options,anthrax,insurance scam and BILLIONS and BILLIONS in nobid blood money to the architects of death and debauchery

[MasterPo]

insurance scam

What scams? Paying out life insurance to the families of the dead? Yea, I see. All those families wanted their husbands and wives to die that day just to collect the insurance money. The biggest organized insurance scam in history. Gotcha.

[Sunofone]

What scams? Paying out life insurance to the families of the dead? Yea, I see. All those families wanted their husbands and wives to die that day just to collect the insurance money. The biggest organized insurance scam in history. Gotcha.

oh i guess ghosthunter never heard of larry silverstein??-- he used to own that 47 story bldg that collapsed in 7 seconds on 9/11 but you see just 90 days before 9/11 he actually bought both twin towers and then insured all three buildings with a "terrorism clause"(huh?!? a conspiracy on its own as no insurance company in their right mind would insure a building damaged by a bomb already by the fbi in 93' under the trump of terrorism) which instantly propelled larry silverstein to the top of the worlds richest men list on 9/11 as each tower paid out 3.5 billion as a seperate event each meaning larry silverstein profitted 7 billion dollars with the events of 9/11-- that the insurance scam i was referencing

[The-Doctor]

oh i guess ghosthunter never heard of larry silverstein??-- he used to own that 47 story bldg that collapsed in 7 seconds on 9/11 but you see just 90 days before 9/11 he actually bought both twin towers and then insured all three buildings with a "terrorism clause"(huh?!? a conspiracy on its own as no insurance company in their right mind would insure a building damaged by a bomb already by the fbi in 93' under the trump of terrorism) which instantly propelled larry silverstein to the top of the worlds richest men list on 9/11 as each tower paid out 3.5 billion as a seperate event each meaning larry silverstein profitted 7 billion dollars with the events of 9/11-- that the insurance scam i was referencing

This is assuming of course that Silverstein was corrupt enough to mastermind this whole operation AND the government was willing to help. Now think about it: How likely would that be?

[bee]

[ If 9/11 was all supposed to be a fiendish plot to create the 'war on terror' and erode the rights of

individuals within Western societies....I think 'they' could have come up with something a little

less complicated and destructive. I.e. a few failed assassination attempts on top American politicians...

a few bogus terrorist cells busted just before they set of a 'dirty bomb' ..stuff like this.

The training camps for terrorists and suicide missions in Afganistan would still have been a legitimate

reason to send troops there.

The invasion of Iraq was legitimised by the 'so-called' weapons of mass destruction.

The presence of potential suicide bombers etc within Western Societies is all that was needed

to increase surveillance etc. on citizens.

It really was not necessary to go to the ridiculous lengths of staging the 9/11 attacks...

IF and I mean only IF something had to be done to create 'the war on terror' etc.

The way some people go on, on this forum...you'd think that there were no suicide attacks

by militant muslims....no al Qaeda...no Osama....no terrorist training camps...no muslims

calling for and working for a global Islam.

Keep going on about truth this, and truth that, does not actually make any of it true.

My own opinion is that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are an anti-Western propaganda exercise.

That a lot of people have got caught up in for various reasons.

I wrote this post for another thread...but I wanted to quote myself and put it

here as well.....because all this about 9/11 conspiracies...is going from the

ridiculous to the insane.

In my opinion.

[Sunofone]

This is assuming of course that Silverstein was corrupt enough to mastermind this whole operation AND the government was willing to help. Now think about it: How likely would that be?

why couldnt he be just another bird caught from the same stone that had bigger(390 billion and growing) intentions

[frenat]

oh i guess ghosthunter never heard of larry silverstein??-- he used to own that 47 story bldg that collapsed in 7 seconds on 9/11 but you see just 90 days before 9/11 he actually bought both twin towers and then insured all three buildings with a "terrorism clause"(huh?!? a conspiracy on its own as no insurance company in their right mind would insure a building damaged by a bomb already by the fbi in 93' under the trump of terrorism) which instantly propelled larry silverstein to the top of the worlds richest men list on 9/11 as each tower paid out 3.5 billion as a seperate event each meaning larry silverstein profitted 7 billion dollars with the events of 9/11-- that the insurance scam i was referencing

yeah the "terrorism clause". One of the buildings had already been attacked years before. Why then would a terrorism clause be unusual? Of course you're implying that the insurance company was in on it because they did insure them? Plus the fact that a terrorism clause is not even really necessary as it would normally be covered under a standard policy.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html

Then there is the fact that Silverstein didn't get $7 billion. The latest rulings have been about $4.6 billion in money paid. And of course all that money has to be used to rebuild. He can't just take the money and run. So how much does it cost to rebuild? $6.3 billion at last count and that will probably go up. Negative $1.7 billion doesn't sound like much of a profit to me. Maybe negative numbers are good where you come from? And then there is the fact that he has had to pay out $120 million a year on rent for the property for an area that is not taking in any money because there are no buildings there.

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

But the biggest kicker is this. He tried to buy less insurance at first and had to be talked up!

Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

Buying less insurance than he could have? Does that really sound like a guy that knew what was going to happen and was out to make a profit?

[flyingswan]

NO we have weighed the evidence contained within the videos of the collapse and compounded it with the eye witness testiomony,prof steven jones conclusions and the fact that there is an ensuing cover-up-- you sir have failed to provide rebuttal from any scientific or academic source-- put up or shut up-- you cannot account for the collpase of 110 stories of concrete and steel falling without resistance end of debate PERIOD!!!!!

Pay attention, sunnyboy, it's WTC7 we're discussing. WTC1 and WTC2 were the ones with 110 stories.

[Q24]

Look at what the NIST studies are actually studying: in the first case the effects of damage to the fireproofing on the steel and in the second measuring data points for validation of the collapse modelling. Neither is saying anything about fire alone causing collapse or the maximum temperatures actually reached in the fires.

I do not see that makes any difference to the facts. Fact: WTC floor models did not collapse when heated to 700^oC. Fact: 157 out of 160 steel samples taken from the collapse initiation zone saw no temperature greater than 250^oC.

You still completely miss the point the I and Pericynthion have been trying to make for most of this thread: load re-distribution due to structural damage makes the structure vulnerable to further damage due to fire.

I am not sure what all the “I and Pericynthion” talk is about. Pericynthion has only made 3 posts in this whole thread and disappears when his theory is questioned.

I agree, load re-distribution and fire may weaken a structure… but they do not make high rise steel framed buildings imitate a controlled demolition, collapsing totally and virtually symmetrically at freefall speed.

The fire does not have to reach any specific temperature for this to be true, the remaining elements of a damaged structure can be carrying loads very close to their ultimate, so a small reduction in strength due to heating can be enough to cause fauilure.

So you believe 100^oC fires progressively moving through a building would be enough to cause a complete collapse so long as a single structural column had initially been removed? For this to be true, you would have to believe that WTC7 was teetering on the edge of a collapse as soon as the light debris from WTC1 had struck.

Here is a totally theoretical question for you flyingswan but put yourself in the position and answer it seriously – if you personally were given the means to make a cut through any 2 structural columns in a building the size and design of WTC7, then given enough hydrocarbon fuels to light fires around all of the remaining columns, do you seriously believe you could cause a collapse as seen on 9/11?

Up to now, you have been arguing that it was a CD because it looked like one. I produce a list of points showing how it differed from a CD and you come back with this preposterous slow-motion CD theory, unlike any real CD, with the explosions spread over hours to mimic a collapse due to damage and fire. As I said, your beliefs are immune to evidence.

It is not slow-motion but spread over a period so as not to make the controlled demolition obvious. The only preposterous thing I see is that you believe fire can cause this collapse over a period of time but explosives/thermite cannot achieve the same thing.

You did not produce a list of points showing how the collapse differed from controlled demolition at all. You came up with one single good point of where it differs and that was the lack of audible explosions immediately prior to the collapse as seen with other controlled demolitions.

Now suppose for a moment you are in charge of creating a strategy to bring down a building without anyone knowing it is a controlled demolition. Are you going to make the setup identical to a conventional controlled demolition, complete with a string of explosions immediately prior to the collapse? Answer: No.

I am not claiming that such temperatures are necessary for a collapse, though with the quantities of diesel fuel in the building there may well have been.

No, I am claiming such temperatures are necessary. These 1,000^oC+ temperatures would be required to heat the structural steel columns to a point where they lost enough strength to collapse. Also these temperatures during the fire are the only way to explain the 727^oC debris pile of WTC7 shown in NASA images taken 5 days after the collapse.

You keep bringing up these Mossad agents, but you have signally failed to explain what you think they were doing with their explosives. If they were part of the CD operation, why weren't the explosives already in the buildings?

When you build a house, do you order to site only the exact number of bricks needed? When you have painted your walls, do you have paint leftover? When you carpet your floors, do you have any cut offs? When tiling your bathroom, do you have spare tiles? Could that perhaps be why every last explosive the Mossad agents were found in possession of was not in the buildings?

Failed to explain what I think they were doing? Let us see, Twin Towers exhibiting characteristics of a controlled demolition, Mossad agents celebrating the collapse, Mossad agents arrested with van of explosives… oh I just cannot figure it out so hmm yes, I think they were on holiday.

The acting dumb thing over this is not working for me flyingswan, so either you can come up with a plausible reason for the Mossad agents or you cannot.

[The-Doctor]

Q24, first, I want you to read or skim through the article at this site: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Then, you'll know about these twelve points that have been brought up, and I want you to tell me what you think of them, they are taken directly from the article:

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

Next, I want you to watch this video, which clearly shows much more damage to WTC7 then most conspiracy theorists argue:

Then, summarize the entire article I showed you....please, take your time on this. It would be nice if you quoted every part of the article you have something to say about. I'd really like to hear what you have to say.