Strawman of giant proportions enters the arena.
Let’s determine if there is a possibility of sabotage before we consider why.
I’ve heard about this significant damage and unfought fires explanation. Can anyone offer an opinion on why there was no helicopter shots or documentary footage of WTC7, seeing as they’d been expecting it to fall for a while? Where are the professional film crew videos of this massive fire and damage?
That is completely absurd.
Again, didn’t you in fact participate in the earlier thread on the WTC7 collapse last year when NIST released their report? What, specifically, was not answered for you in that previous discussion?
Can you please name some of the controlled demolitions professionals who were impressed by how WTC7 fell down and the context of their remarks? I’m sure that a U-boat captain would have been impressed by watching the Titanic sink, but that doesn’t mean that the iceberg was an elaborate cover story to hide a torpedo hit.
Just to repeat stuff from the earlier thread, here’s a link (note, it’s a PDF) to the NIST report:
And there’s a very nice “executive summary” on pages xxxvi through xxxvii. It’s only three pages long, I highly recommend that you read it.
How would that work?
“I know! We’ll wire up #7 now, and if a couple airliners get hijacked at the same time, and the hijackers decide to fly them into the twin towers, and the crashes bring down the towers, then we’ll push the button to demolish #7 and no one will ever suspect!”
Why is it a strawman? Zsofia’s question goes to the heart of the matter.
Do you even know what “strawman” means?
Oh, I don’t know, maybe because there was an infinitely bigger story to follow?
Did anyone really care about WTC 7 prior to conspiracy theories?
You are grasping at anything now. The towers have been debunked so now you stubbornly ask repeat questions about building 7.
I seem to detect a pattern here.
It’s a reasonable question.
Who was going to fly a helicopter into an area where there were fires and two office towers full of asbestos had fallen down? I doubt flying conditions were very good, and by the time that building fell, lower Manhattan was cordoned off.
If there is no possible “why” for people planning and carrying out some action requiring massive effort, then there is no possibility of them having done so. That law of behavior is as dependable as any other physical law.
Those answers have been available for 40 years. Why don’t you go to the City of New York and look the damned answers up yourself? The city likely has the blueprints for the WTC; they’d have had to be filed with the city. From the takeoff lists, bill of material and blueprints, you could - if you know how to even read such things, which I doubt - figure it out yourself quite easily.
You can get a JetBlue flight to JFK for cheap from anywhere.
With a very quick Google search I was able to find half of the damned things for free on the web. The information is out there. Get to work. We’re not doing your homework for you.
Nitpick: only the lower 40 floors of North Tower had asbestos.
Not to mention all the grounded aircraft.
Well, the professional crews were going to set up to film it, but they had a hot shoot scheduled in Malibu, that day, and did not make it.
You know, it is just possible that a fire department that is seriously concerned about saving as many lives and as much property as possible in the midst of a serious disaster just might not think about calling in videographers to “document” the destruction of a building that they had already given up as a loss.
News crew helicopters were focused on WTC1 and WC2 until they collapsed, and then spent the time before they were ordered out of the air filming the general chaos. The firefighters did not necessarily expect a collapse, just an uncontrollable inferno, so they would have had no reason to go around telling people to film a “collapse” (at some undetermined point in the future).
Your question is rather like asking why all the news cameras in Dealy Plaza were not focused on the Book Depository and the grassy knoll, in advance.
There are videos of WTC7 burning before the collapse and they do show multiple fires on multiple levels raging out of control WTC7 was built with changes to its lower structure to accommodate being built on a smaller footprint than the foundation had been designed to support.
If I had to guess, I’d say film crews (and everyone else) were being kept out the area by police concerned about their safety, and with good reason after two 110-story buildings had crumpled, scattering lethal debris all over the place, including to other buildings. WTC-7 was mortally wounded by the collapse of WTC-1, and WTC-7’s collapse significantly damaged Fiterman Hall (to the north, across Barclay street), requiring that building be eventually torn down - not a result I’d expect from a tidy controlled demo.
Long-distance pictures and footage of the damaged WTC-7 are findable by anyone willing to expend the minimal effort of initiating a google search. By any measure, the neighborhood of the World Trade Plaza was not a safe place to be filming or anything else that day. Find an argument with some substance, please.
Actually, they did expect a collapse. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said:
Wow. The amount of flames and smoke pouring from the building is incredible to see.
How anyone could think that any explosives could have lasted a minute in that inferno is mind boggling.
And if anyone tries to say that they are trying to change facts, we had a post here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=1599641&postcount=351
The video I linked a few posts up ends with the area around 7 being cleared.
As I’ve already mentioned, it is no surprise that there was some expectation of the building to collapse, when two of the tallest buildings in the country had just fallen down in less than 40 secs. Had those two buildings not been involved and this was an inferno caused by a bomb, nobody would have expected it to come down the way it did.
What would they have expected?