12-02-2012, 05:04 PM
Good point Charles. This is basically why I have been paying a fair amount of attention details of what actually happened at the trade center. If one sees this as Judy Wood does it leads to a very different set of players than if they see it as I do (these days) as a mostly a natural event (post plane strikes) which may have had some help (a bigger conspiracy).
Bldg 7 represents a unual problem contradiction for many truth advocates. On the one hand they dismiss the impacts of the plans and contributing the the collapse/destruction of the towers... and on the other hand the point out bldg 7 was not hit by a plane so what could have caused it to collapse except planted explosives.
Add to this that the OCT and subsequent cover up provided a hardly credible explanation for all three collapses and we are left wondering what DID happen?
I believe that the structure of 7 might have had fatal flaws in the design which included the transfer trusses over a huge Con Ed sub station with 12,00 gallons of diesel fuel above them. The stupidy of this design was (of course) down played by the official explanation because it would expose the PANYNJ, the architects, engineers and the DOB to lawsuits for liability.. regaredess of what might have caused the collapse... the design was insane! Same with the twin towers.
Lately I am thinking that the first plane might have cause voltage spikes with caused various sub stations in the twins (eight in each) and the huge one in Bldg 7 to explode leaking flammable oil and releasing explosive gas which cause the diesel to leak and burn for hours... unfought when the sprinkler system failed and no water could be pumped. It's a theory and it's also a sequence of conincidences which hijackers could likely not have planned for... Nor for that matter someone who was trying to take down the twin towers.
And this leads me to ask... Why did the conspirators, whomever they were, need to COMPLETELY destroy the entire WTC?
I would think that the damage caused to the towers even if they didn't collapse was so *fatal* that no one would want to work in them and the would stand as huge blemishes towering of NYC for years until they were taken down. The hijacker guys had no interest in taking down bldg 7. Who even heard of this building? Could all the destruction we witnessed represent a series of unforseen results which cascaded simply because of the magnitude of the forces and the fragility of the overall design... which was a series of cascading failures? It's a possibility to consider perhaps.
However, once one looks at the result and considers the ENTIRE destruction as planned one needs to come up with a purpose for destroying each and every building of the complex... and conspiracy buffs have come up with some very compelling reasons... stealing gold, destroying financial records, collecting insurance, making an abestos nightmare go away and make it all look like a war zone so a military response could be taken
Bldg 7 represents a unual problem contradiction for many truth advocates. On the one hand they dismiss the impacts of the plans and contributing the the collapse/destruction of the towers... and on the other hand the point out bldg 7 was not hit by a plane so what could have caused it to collapse except planted explosives.
Add to this that the OCT and subsequent cover up provided a hardly credible explanation for all three collapses and we are left wondering what DID happen?
I believe that the structure of 7 might have had fatal flaws in the design which included the transfer trusses over a huge Con Ed sub station with 12,00 gallons of diesel fuel above them. The stupidy of this design was (of course) down played by the official explanation because it would expose the PANYNJ, the architects, engineers and the DOB to lawsuits for liability.. regaredess of what might have caused the collapse... the design was insane! Same with the twin towers.
Lately I am thinking that the first plane might have cause voltage spikes with caused various sub stations in the twins (eight in each) and the huge one in Bldg 7 to explode leaking flammable oil and releasing explosive gas which cause the diesel to leak and burn for hours... unfought when the sprinkler system failed and no water could be pumped. It's a theory and it's also a sequence of conincidences which hijackers could likely not have planned for... Nor for that matter someone who was trying to take down the twin towers.
And this leads me to ask... Why did the conspirators, whomever they were, need to COMPLETELY destroy the entire WTC?
I would think that the damage caused to the towers even if they didn't collapse was so *fatal* that no one would want to work in them and the would stand as huge blemishes towering of NYC for years until they were taken down. The hijacker guys had no interest in taking down bldg 7. Who even heard of this building? Could all the destruction we witnessed represent a series of unforseen results which cascaded simply because of the magnitude of the forces and the fragility of the overall design... which was a series of cascading failures? It's a possibility to consider perhaps.
However, once one looks at the result and considers the ENTIRE destruction as planned one needs to come up with a purpose for destroying each and every building of the complex... and conspiracy buffs have come up with some very compelling reasons... stealing gold, destroying financial records, collecting insurance, making an abestos nightmare go away and make it all look like a war zone so a military response could be taken