My main problem with a CD hypothesis for WTC 7 is that I fail to see how a CD could have been carried out without it being obvious from at least some of the many views of the collapse. For me WTC 7 fell too fast and too symmetrically even for a conventional CD! By "conventional CD" I mean one using high-explosive cutter charges on selected columns. In all the CD's I have seen (on YouTube for example), you can hear and often see the timed sequence of explosions - BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG - moving around the building. We didn't see or hear this for WTC 7 on 9/11.
OWE followed with:
This is probably as good a time as any to mention something that's been on my mind for several years. What if the official story was that WTC7 was brought down intentionally for safety reasons? This is not a new idea, but it's never been treated with exactly the slant I'd like to give it.
Had that been the story from the very beginning, would we have seen 'debunkers' denying it? Because, as they've said many times:
- it didn't look like a CD
- it didn't sound like a CD
- the building was unstable, on fire, and unsafe to enter
- there wasn't time to prep
Of course, this is hardly an indictment of people holding these opinions because (at least for now) these are perfectly consistent with the official story, there's no reason to have to come into accord with my hypothetical. Neither will anyone have to defend their position against a hypothetical future release of such information, unless it happens! Still, I find it interesting to speculate.
Such a scenario parallels the issue of whether flight 93 was shot down. On 9/11, I surmised that it was and attributed nothing nefarious to it. Frankly, I thought it was about time the multi-trillion MIC got off their collective workfare asses. Ok, so the official story is a really feel-good tale of heroism instead. The PTB were poised to shoot it down, but the guileless (and unlitigatable) heroism preempted that effort. OK.
(I mean no disrespect to passengers and their families in what I just said. No matter what happened, nothing diminishes the tragedy. Were there relatives of mine on the plane, I would hardly be anxious for it to be shot down and neither would I be consoled by any 'greater good' explanations. To be sure, after much reflection over the years, I realize I don't support a shootdown decision, and I believe that I'm wrong to hold that opinion! Imagine having only minutes to decide.)
Back to WTC7. What other parallels are there? Why, the cause of the demise itself. For years, we've heard about:
- groaning and creaking
- a growing bulge
- leaning
- massive debris damage
- combustion of large amounts of stored fuel
Only this time, the official story is... groaning and creaking maybe, but none of the others. Now, one positive remark I can make about NIST's report on 7 - I've never seen a better muzzle! What else could so effectively get self-assured blowhards to shut the hell up? Have you noticed the direct temporal correlation between the release of the report and the diminished posting frequency of certain individuals?
What of the claims above that appear to negate an intentionally induced collapse?
It didn't look like a CD
What does a CD look like? I've now viewed scores of demolition videos representing a variety of structures and methods (including an obvious fake that fooled me for a minute or two). There are patterns, of course, but there's no one particular way they look. WTC7 seems too abrupt and too fast, but so far that's just an impression. On the other hand, there's enough similarity that to deny it would be irrational or ignorant.
It didn't sound like a CD
I've seen two CDs now that were quiet at initiation. They were much smaller structures than 7, but it negates the claim that there must necessarily be ear-splitting bangs. One 9lb charge produces 130-140 db at a kilometer? Seriously??? I guess the crowds who gather within 1km of the Vegas demolitions, utilizing at least hundreds of charges, must go home with their ears bleeding. And I thought the hazard was dust! Can you imagine the people just across the street from the Landmark? They're deaf now! The insurance must be outrageous!
Nevertheless, after my fallacious display of incredulity, I can only offer that I've no opinion on the subject of WTC7 and sound. None of the videos I've seen of the collapse have any sound....
The building was unstable, on fire, and unsafe to enter
and
There wasn't time to prep
Firemen enter burning buildings all the time. It violates common sense, but it's a fact. I expect there are other professions willing to do the same. But that assumes anyone needs to.
I remember reading a magazine article in the late 90s (I think) in which it was claimed the mega-skyscraper in Malaysia(?) was being built with demolition charges in place. I'm neither lying nor mistaken about this claim, although it's certainly possible the author of the article was incorrect. This is not something you forget or misunderstand. I was struck with the imprudence of this on more than one level. Doing it, first of all, then publicizing it! What if a fire set these off? What if bad people commandeer them for nefarious purposes? I've since searched the internet for some corroboration of this claim, with no success.
If it were considered expedient to bring down the building, are we so sure that could not be accomplished? If you had the power, and made such a decision, wouldn't you want it kept on the down low? How many people kept the munitions in the Lusitania secret, for how many years?
All this to say, proving intentional destruction would prove authorities lie and cover-up decisions, good or bad. And slap yet another muzzle on windbags.
Many key points that deserve their own thread. I have to digest these comments before I can respond.
One note on the claim that WTC 7 was CDed for safety reasons:
Then why did they use "stealth devices"? As Dr G pointed out, we heard no large "pops".
If it was CDed, someone was trying to disguise the CD when choosing and planting the devices.
