The WTC7 Miracle
I assume everyone is familiar with the incredible "collapse" of the 47-story WTC7 tower-- how smoothly and quickly and symmetrically it went down.
The obvious conclusion for what happened to WTC7 is that it was taken down by some form of controlled demolition. The logic is simple enough-- that what happened to WTC7 can only be explained by controlled demolition because ONLY controlled demolition can cause buildings to go down like that. This is easy and strong logic that everyone can grasp. Fire-induced weakening of structural columns of WTC7 should never have led to such a global, symmetrical collapse (funny how partial collapses occur all the time except on 9/11).
The problem with the traditional controlled demolition explanation is that there wasn't any clear series of explosions that went off before the tower went down, like with traditional controlled demolitions. There may have been one large explosion according to some reports-- but there almost certainly wasn't the series of sharp bang-bang-bang-bangs seen with traditional controlled demolition (I say "almost certainly" because we can't rule out massive levels of video and audio manipulation).
In any case, the way that WTC7 went down was far better than any traditional controlled demolition-- in terms of how smoothly and symmetrically the tower went down.
So given the special nature of the WTC7 collapse, it is reasonable to wonder if something very special was done to bring down WTC7 in the way it came down.
The "anonymous physicist" has come up with a unique and clever solution for what happened to WTC7: it was sunk into a large prepositioned hole in the ground. He theorizes that this hole was made under the WTC7 basement levels by one or more nuclear borer machines. Then the idea is that strong explosives (mini-nuke or otherwise) took out the supports under WTC7 such that it fell straight into the hole underneath.
Now, there really isn't much data to support this idea except that it CAN explain the EXTREMELY even and rapid straight-down way in which WTC7 sunk. The theory does present the problem of having a 100-200 foot deep WTC7-sized hole in the ground that required some degree of cover-up. This latter point is not insurmountable, but it is an issue. The other problem I think would be the sculpting of this hole under the tower without there being some partial collapse along the way. But this could have been accomplished, nonetheless.
The reason that this nuclear borer/hole theory makes sense is it explains how the whole building could have gone straight down without obvious massive explosions taking out the center of the building.
One odd thing is how little we know about what was under the WTC7 pile. We know a little about the WTC1 and WTC2 debris, and much less about the WTC7 debris. There was certainly a great deal of heat in both piles, and I think it is absurd to think this was simply from the building fires smoldering in an oxygen-deprived environment.
The fact is, even if there were some mechanism to scoop out/vaporize the complete INTERIOR of WTC7 without affecting the outer structural facade, even this would not allow the smooth symmetrical "collapse" that was seen-- unless the bottom twenty floors were simply blown up/vaporized completely and evenly. But even then-- how could they do this without damaging the two buildings right next to WTC7 on either side? This point actually favors the borer hypothesis.
The bottom line here is that, I think, the miracle of the WTC7 collapse requires some very special explanation. The nuclear borer idea may not be the ultimate answer, but it deserves consideration as it can explain the evidence rather well. Of course, while we can't completely rule out out fakery of the WTC7 "collapse" images, this seems somewhat unlikely given the fact that even someone like Rick Siegel ("911 Eyewitness") got footage of WTC7 going straight down.
Addendum: one reason the 9/11 perps may have specifically WANTED to sink WTC7 down into a hole is that it would leave a SMALLER DEBRIS PILE that way! This would be critical for them for explaining why the debris piles for the huge WTC towers were so small! The lack of WTC1 and WTC2 debris can be explained by the idea that that a significant amount of the WTC1 and WTC2 structures were likely vaporized by nuclear-type devices.
The obvious conclusion for what happened to WTC7 is that it was taken down by some form of controlled demolition. The logic is simple enough-- that what happened to WTC7 can only be explained by controlled demolition because ONLY controlled demolition can cause buildings to go down like that. This is easy and strong logic that everyone can grasp. Fire-induced weakening of structural columns of WTC7 should never have led to such a global, symmetrical collapse (funny how partial collapses occur all the time except on 9/11).
The problem with the traditional controlled demolition explanation is that there wasn't any clear series of explosions that went off before the tower went down, like with traditional controlled demolitions. There may have been one large explosion according to some reports-- but there almost certainly wasn't the series of sharp bang-bang-bang-bangs seen with traditional controlled demolition (I say "almost certainly" because we can't rule out massive levels of video and audio manipulation).
In any case, the way that WTC7 went down was far better than any traditional controlled demolition-- in terms of how smoothly and symmetrically the tower went down.
So given the special nature of the WTC7 collapse, it is reasonable to wonder if something very special was done to bring down WTC7 in the way it came down.
The "anonymous physicist" has come up with a unique and clever solution for what happened to WTC7: it was sunk into a large prepositioned hole in the ground. He theorizes that this hole was made under the WTC7 basement levels by one or more nuclear borer machines. Then the idea is that strong explosives (mini-nuke or otherwise) took out the supports under WTC7 such that it fell straight into the hole underneath.
Now, there really isn't much data to support this idea except that it CAN explain the EXTREMELY even and rapid straight-down way in which WTC7 sunk. The theory does present the problem of having a 100-200 foot deep WTC7-sized hole in the ground that required some degree of cover-up. This latter point is not insurmountable, but it is an issue. The other problem I think would be the sculpting of this hole under the tower without there being some partial collapse along the way. But this could have been accomplished, nonetheless.
The reason that this nuclear borer/hole theory makes sense is it explains how the whole building could have gone straight down without obvious massive explosions taking out the center of the building.
One odd thing is how little we know about what was under the WTC7 pile. We know a little about the WTC1 and WTC2 debris, and much less about the WTC7 debris. There was certainly a great deal of heat in both piles, and I think it is absurd to think this was simply from the building fires smoldering in an oxygen-deprived environment.
The fact is, even if there were some mechanism to scoop out/vaporize the complete INTERIOR of WTC7 without affecting the outer structural facade, even this would not allow the smooth symmetrical "collapse" that was seen-- unless the bottom twenty floors were simply blown up/vaporized completely and evenly. But even then-- how could they do this without damaging the two buildings right next to WTC7 on either side? This point actually favors the borer hypothesis.
The bottom line here is that, I think, the miracle of the WTC7 collapse requires some very special explanation. The nuclear borer idea may not be the ultimate answer, but it deserves consideration as it can explain the evidence rather well. Of course, while we can't completely rule out out fakery of the WTC7 "collapse" images, this seems somewhat unlikely given the fact that even someone like Rick Siegel ("911 Eyewitness") got footage of WTC7 going straight down.
Addendum: one reason the 9/11 perps may have specifically WANTED to sink WTC7 down into a hole is that it would leave a SMALLER DEBRIS PILE that way! This would be critical for them for explaining why the debris piles for the huge WTC towers were so small! The lack of WTC1 and WTC2 debris can be explained by the idea that that a significant amount of the WTC1 and WTC2 structures were likely vaporized by nuclear-type devices.
posted by spooked at 6:26 PM
5 Comments:
A fine addendum, Spooked.
Those points can indeed be countered. RE scooping out large volumes under a tall structure without collapse, you can find many instances of this. This would even include NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs scooped out from under a mountain without collapse of that mountain on top of the headquarters. There are many other acknowledged examples of such structures already, if you look. China is building all sorts of things like that. All this is in the public domain. I alluded to the massive, deep underground bases, that some have witnessed--I should say were in, including allegedly Bill Deagle, M.D. But if one is not yet ready for that, then just examine the publicly acknowledged such structures.
And as far as a large hole at WTC7. Perhaps some of the anomalies of WTC7 (and the other towers?) subsequent to its demolition can ONLY be explained by such a phenomenon.
If she is to be believed, see Judy Wood's website, where she shows many trucks bringing earth (dirt) IN TO the WTC, the next day or so. Now I thought one possibility for its use would be to absorb radiation, but we know they didn't care about that, as they shipped it to China. So maybe filling a very large hole, or holes, was what this dirt was to be used for, at least in part.
Then we have to account for why it took five months--and I have even seen accounts significantly longer than this stated--to get to, and/or put out, areas of molten steel and very high temperatures--which I have hypothesized may have been criticality sites. (An dno one else, other than Willima tahil has addressed the source of such high temperatures, months later.)
Perhaps the ONLY explanation for why getting to and putting out/removing high temperature (objects) took so very long, and was so very difficult, is that these sites were very deep underground!
When one encounters numerous phenomenona that are extremely unique and impossible to explain in a conventional manner, one must propose things that may of course look strange, at first. Often such things turn out to be inevitable.
But truly healthy scepticism, and not shill gibberish is welcomed, and should only help to either dispel my hypotheses and speculations, or show that they are plausible. Absolute proof, alas, is not likely due to the circumstances and the politics (high treason and mass murder.)
Anonymous Physicist
i'm glad that you brought up the fact of the trucking in of dirt to the wtc complex immediately following 9/11.
looking at photos one can see these incoming trucks for oneself.
but it would take countless trucks of countless loads of dirt to even begin to fill up even a fraction of the 3 wtc towers' basements.
the dirt, which amounted to surface sprinkling only, must have been to cover measurements of radiation or whatever molecular dissociative effect that prof wood posits.
i am a master of filling up holes with dirt and it would take more than a noticeable amount to hide the lack of debris at all 3 towers.
h.
Clean-up "officially" ended at the WTC on 5/30/02. You can truck in a lot of dirt in nine months. And I did not claim that 20 floors worth were "bored out" for the other buildings. Just the WTC7 for its unique ensemble "collapse."
There are even other possibilities given the capabilities of the nuclear borer, and successor devices.
A.P.
ok. i don't doubt your expertise on any of this.
but the photos of the dirt @ ground zero seem as if they were just sprinkled over whatever small amount of rubble remained.
could this sprinkling of dirt influence any geiger counter (or whatever scope they use now) measurements?
h.
Well yes to a degree. Both washing down with water--which they also did quite a lot of--or the dirt treatment should lower somewhat, some radiation parameters. Of course, they also trucked away much dirt. (Some isotopes have a longer half-life, and are not so easily "treated".)
But what I wrote, was that I don't see the dirt on some of the photos that Wood says it is there, and I think the dirt--over 9 months or more may have been put to another use.
A.P.
Post a Comment
<< Home