Re: Quick questiopn for onlyme..

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:31:01 -0800 (PST), parris_k@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 14 Nov, 20:27, "John of Aix" <j.mur...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
parri...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Why, instead of..

1) Wiring WTC 1,2 and 7 up with explosves, without anybody noticing

Parts of WTC 1 and 2 were 'mysteriously' closed for some while prior
to the attacks and all security systems turned off.

Cite?


2) Making sure WTC 1 fell over in such a way as to damage WTC7 at the
point they had decided to set the explosives off, initiating the
collapse.

WTC 7 had a few small fires, nothing else.

Incorrect - there were sustained fires on several floors and some
rather major structural damage (liek a ten-storey high gas in the
South face)

If the gash was there on one side, why did the building fall straight
down and not topple?



3) Guarding against the explosives (which must be very accurately
placed) being knocked out of position or destroyed by the aircraft
crashing in to them

Perhaps they were on the levels hit, but that wouldn't have any effect
further down.

Controlled demolitions require rather precise placinig of explosives,
you know.


4) Risking the discovery of explosives in the wreckage or via video
evidence

The video evidence seems to be there unless you can find some other
explanation for sudden flames as the collapse began, the plane fuel had
long been burnt off so where did they come from?.

Same place as the rest of the flames came from - burning office
fixtures and fittings.

But the aircraft fuel is the reason given for the anomalous collapse
of the main buildings... if office furniture can burn that hot, then
that would have been given as a reason surely?


As for the wreckage,
it was immediately disposed of without any serious examination.

Incorrect.

Cite? :)



5) Arranging for four aircraft to be hijacked and to hit the towers.

Two hot the towers and arranging such thing was simple enough especially
as air defences had been stood down or sent elsewhere.

Well, again, taht's incorrect. Air defences were not "stood down". But
the point is, it was easy to hijack aircraft and crash them int
obuildings - so why bother with the complication of all this
controlled demolition nonsense afterwards?

Because it's better to have buildings fall down in a controlled way
than of their own volition? Or maybe they knew they wouldn't fall down
at all without some assistance.
(not sure what to believe personally - just throwing some stuff in the
air...)



..didn't they simply:

Arrange the hijacking of two planes and fly them into the WTC, and an
extra into WTC7?

They did have two 'hijacked' planes but they could not possibly cause
the collapse of the towers and most definitely not the collapse of WTC7.

Well, that is clearly not the case, but leaving that aside for the
moment - so what?
What difference does it make that the buildings fell?

A psychological one.


I believed the official story at the beginning, now I do not believe a
word of it.

I know two aircraft crashed into WTC 1 + 2, causing significant
structural damage and igniting a large office fire which further
weakened the structure and caused its collapse. WTC 7 was close enough
to the Towers to recieve significant damage from their collapse whcih
led to its own subsequent collapse.

The information is out there, and freely available.

NIST has yet to produce its final report on WTC7, years after saying
it would appear soon.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Physics of the 9/11 building collapses?
    ... from the aircraft was sufficient to bring down the WTC 1 & 2, ... wasn't hit by the aircraft, WTC 7, and suffered only superficial damage ... exacerbated by the collapse of the other two buildings... ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physics of the 9/11 building collapses?
    ... from the aircraft was sufficient to bring down the WTC 1 & 2, ... wasn't hit by the aircraft, WTC 7, and suffered only superficial damage ... exacerbated by the collapse of the other two buildings... ... Since I happen to be qualifying at this moment as fire safety director ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quick questiopn for onlyme..
    ... WTC 7 had a few small fires, ... placed) being knocked out of position or destroyed by the aircraft ... explanation for sudden flames as the collapse began, ... Two hot the towers and arranging such thing was simple enough especially ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Physics of the 9/11 building collapses?
    ... If you accept the premise that the damage ... from the aircraft was sufficient to bring down the WTC 1 & 2, ... wasn't hit by the aircraft, WTC 7, and suffered only superficial damage ... exacerbated by the collapse of the other two buildings... ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: ?? Magic Exploding Fuel Pipelines??
    ... The Destruction of WTC 7 ... on its collapse has been postponed many times. ... building was reported on fire at 4.10 pm by CNN, although the fires seem ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
Loading