Reply To: Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC

Home Forums Discussion Forum Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC Reply To: Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC


I’m going off my “emergency demolition” scenario because of the 0.5 seconds of descent of WTC7’s roofline at uniform velocity as measured by Chandler, which is inconsistent with collapse initiation by explosives, see here, but almost every other claim you make is questionable at best, so here goes…

“It takes weeks if not months to properly rig a building of that size to implode.”

Teams of military engineers routinely rig demolitions in hours.

“It is not feasible to consider that the building was somehow rigged for a perfect demolition in the few hours”

It wasn’t perfect; WTC7’s collapse wrote off one other building and did millions of dollars of damage to another.

“Fire fighters would not have had time to rig Building 7 that day”

But there is a major naval base just across the water, so a SEAL team perhaps? They do demolitions.

“How come they used state-of-the-art, military-grade-only at the time Nano-composites of Thermite?”

I know of no evidence of nano thermite. I thought the Harrit paper alleges only ordinary thermite, which is easy to make from common materials. So far as I know, nanothermite was proposed only because normal thermite reacts too slowly for a sequenced, theatrical demolition of the Twin Towers; it’s impossible to time accurately enough.

“It’s tough on the cognition…”

Please, don’t talk down to people this way; I’m entirely capable of imagining and considering such scenarios. I reject demolition theory not because it is too scary to consider, but because it doesn’t fit the facts.

“There is no way to shoe-horn five Israeli’s dressed as Arabs…”

This is the first I’ve heard that the “dancing Israelis” were dressed as Arabs; please substantiate.

“…into the Al-Qaeda-dunnit thesis”

Perhaps you are unaware of the decades-long de facto alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and Israeli infiltration and exploitation of Islamist groups. But in any case, “al Qaeda” is merely a convenient label, applied by propagandists when the Wahhabist extremists do something embarrassing to the Neocon alliance. When such extremists do something convenient for Neocon objectives, the propagandists call them “threatened civilians”, “freedom fighters” or “moderate rebels”.

“why do we believe Arabs were on those planes? Perhaps the suicide pilots were Israeli’s, not Arabs”

1) The Israeli ideology does not inspire suicide attacks, whereas Wahhabist indoctrination is well known to; indeed, this is what makes it so valuable for projection of Saudi power worldwide, and hence to the Neocon alliance.

2) Even if 9/11 was a purely Israeli operation as you seem to be saying, would it not make more sense for Israel to exploit Wahhabist-inspired suicide hijackers?

3) Many thousands of US citizens were involved in the various investigations. It might be possible to persuade or coerce a few people into endorsing a completely false finding, but not that many; some would speak out, knowing that many others would confirm the truth of what they were saying.

4) Many agents spoke out after 9/11 about how their investigations would have revealed the hijackers, had not higher authorities ordered them to stop.