What was the point of blowing up WTC7

[dtugg]

Has any twoofer ever given any reason that makes even a modicum of sense as to why the NWO blew up WTC7? Any twoofer that still posts here want to take a stab at it? Keep in mind that I am not interested in how you "know" it was a controlled demolition, I want know why they did it.

[fitzgibbon]

Easy peasey, dtugg. CD 2 buildings, get the third free!

HTH
Fitz :D

[Lennart Hyland]

Something about secret documents huh? :P

[bonavada]

Has any twoofer ever given any reason that makes even a modicum of sense as to why the NWO blew up WTC7? Any twoofer that still posts here want to take a stab at it? Keep in mind that I am not interested in how you "know" it was a controlled demolition, I want know why they did it.

3-2-1 to "Best way to shred incriminating secret CIA/FBI documents" "Lining Silversteins pockets" yadda yadda

BV

[bonavada]

Something about secret documents huh? :P

Dangitt you got to the well before me.

BV

[1337m4n]

Because nobody at the NWO knows how to use a paper shredder, or "right click -> delete".

[DGM]

It's been long enough I think we can finally tell them why. It was to flush out all of the malcontents. If you questioned the collapse your name was added to our list. Seeing as now there are no new names to add it's just about time to round them up.

The chicken pecks the dog. (wait for Obama's final instructions)

[johnny karate]

Maybe we should ask the FDNY.

Oh, that's right.... according to every Truther who posts here the FDNY are all either cowards or dupes, so they probably won't tell us.

[240-185]

In fact, truthers hold a coherent speech. Whether they think towers fell into their own footprint or not, WTC7 was so close from the Twin Towers, the result had to look like a mess in order to "fake" a natural collapse.

[defaultdotxbe]

the best one i've heard was that WTC7 was the "command post" where they oversaw and controlled the demolition of the towers, so they had to get rid of it lest anyone discover its true purpose

of course then you gotta wonder what happened to the "command center" for the WTC7 demolition...

[AJM8125]

of course then you gotta wonder what happened to the "command center" for the WTC7 demolition...

Duh. They put it on Flight 93.

[A W Smith]

Because as everyone knows.:rolleyes: Its much more effective to shower the entire lower half of Manhattan with secret documents than to feed them into a cross shredder.

[tsig]

Maybe we should ask the FDNY.

Oh, that's right.... according to every Truther who posts here the FDNY are all either cowards or dupes, so they probably won't tell us.

Except for the ones that heard the explosions.:rolleyes:

[Sunstealer]

Yeah - they shredded the documents, but that wasn't deemed sufficient so they set the building on fire. A bit later the head honcho of the NWO thought that it's best to be on the safe side and so they blew it up.

[Thunder]

what was the point???

WTC 7 is where they planned the entire operation for months!!

it was the command center during 9-11 for the attacks. all the evidence was in that building!!

All the FDNY, NYPD, DDC, Parks Dept, Sanitation Department, and Housing Department 9-11 plans were there!!! They were all in on it I tell ya!!!

=)

[JimBenArm]

They had to have a building that looked like a CD, so Christopher7 could have a hobby for the last years of his life.

[firecoins]

What was the point in destoying WTC 5? It didn't collapse but it was destroyed. Of course we have never had 1 thread discussing that.

The Deutche Bank building was damaged by debris from the collapse of 1 & 2. It has been vacant ever since. I don't know how that was possible since truthers claim 1 & 2 fell into their own footprint. What is the explaination?

Why has there yet to be an actual cohesive alternate theory based on actual evidence indicating a government black ops? Truthers blame it on Bush, neocons and Israel but there is no theory how this was pulled off.

[eromitlab]

the best one i've heard was that WTC7 was the "command post" where they oversaw and controlled the demolition of the towers, so they had to get rid of it lest anyone discover its true purpose

of course then you gotta wonder what happened to the "command center" for the WTC7 demolition...

I've seen that one several times. It gets dumber with every presentation.

The WTC7 demo command center was obviously in the van that "blew up" on the George Washington Bridge. Any other theory is disinfo planted by Mossad.

[cheat3]

possibly insurance claim?

[AJM8125]

possibly insurance claim?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249d05f1749a53.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15833)

[Minadin]

Big No on the insurance. They might, if you're lucky, give you the replacement value of the building to cover the construction costs, but in the intervening period between the building's destruction and the opening of the new one, you lose all the monthly rent, and you have to waste a bunch of time and money dealing with constructing the new edifice.

Also, see this thread for why insurance fraud isn't a viable motive:

If that was insurance fraud, it was the single stupidest insurance fraud in the history of ever. -- JonnyFive (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2191861#post2191861)

[Dave Rogers]

A claim I heard a long time ago was: The CIA had a major office in WTC7. The organisation carrying out the WTC attacks was a blacker-than-black ops agency that nobody's heard of. They demolished the CIA HQ in order to send a message to the CIA along the lines of "We know where you live, so don't come after us because this is what we'll do to you if you try it". As everybody knows, the CIA is a collective wuss that automatically gives in to any kind of physical intimidation.

Dave

[Comsat Angel]

Point? There was no "point". The NWO is just plain eeeevil, man.

[Thunder]

possibly insurance claim?

do you realize how much rent money Silverstein has LOST since the towers came down????

it is pointless to take down buildings that are bringing in billions in rent every year, so that you can build new buildings ten years later...and then collect rent..again.

this logic only works in the minds of truthers.

No one purposefully demolishes 30 year old profitable skyscrapers.

[roger]

1. blow up building
2. lose millions in rent
3. rebuild at current NYC prices
4. ???
5 profit!!!!

[Mince]

What was the point of blowing up WTC7

Destroying three of the most iconic buildings in the world, destroying four aircraft, and killing almost 3,000 people in instances of utter terror was not quite enough to get us Kool-Aid drinkers on board for a strike at Iraq. No, we needed that one last building, empty, to fall, seven hours later. Three buildings, four aircraft and 3,000 people? Ok, but NO MORE! WTC 7 was "the last straw," as they say.

Or, they destroyed all of the 9/11 planning evidence in that collapse. Whatever the truthers say is fine.

By the way, if debris from WTC 2 hadn't hit and perforated WTC 7, causing fires, the U.S. Government would have had no plausible explanation for WTC 7's collapse. Isn't it curious then that WTC 2 seemingly cooperated with the federal government? How did it know that it must eject its debris into WTC 7? What wonderful serendipity that was. I mean, if you believe that Flight 93 was supposed to crash into WTC 7, and that plan was ruined by the selfish passengers, merely trying to save themselves and not onboard with the Iraq directive, then you have to believe the U.S. Government was obscenely fortunate when they ultimately got their WTC 7 "plane crash." Do you think it was dumb luck, or do you believe the U.S. Government controlled the collapse debris from WTC 2 and directed it into WTC 7?

Whatever you believe, you have to ask yourself why the U.S. Government waited seven hours (seven hours!!) to collapse WTC 7, in front of what they must have anticipated would be many news (and amateur) video cameras (read: eyewitnesses who are clever enough---see:truthers---to recognize when the laws of physics are violated), instead of destroying WTC 7 in the midst of WTC 2's considerable dust cloud (when no one would have witnessed the collapse---hence, no pesky questions from pesky truthers). Man, for dudes who planned---and executed, seemingly flawlessly (in regards to operational aspects)---such a complex operation, they certainly didn't seem to be using their brains correctly.


ETA: My comments are not necessarily directed at the OP. I'm sure he knows that.

[Sunstealer]

Do you think it was dumb luck, or do you believe the U.S. Government controlled the collapse debris from WTC 2 and directed it into WTC 7? [TM mode]Oh definitely a CD - it's the Controlled that puts the C in CD. They have these super secret military thermite shaped charges. Shaped means it gives you the ability to direct debris from a CD. [TM mode]

[Praktik]

The one that takes the cake for me after I asked this same question in another forum:

occult reasons

Something to do with sacred geometry or the three buildings mimicing the pyramids of giza or maybe their bohemian grove-style satanism.

[ravdin]

Actually, I have yet to hear an explanation from the truthers about who pulled off this caper. Who exactly is involved this "NWO"? Apparently, it's poor form to ask.

[Praktik]

Here dug it up - I pressed him on the occult reasons but he demurred, cause he knew it wouldn't really be well-received, here's the most he was willing to give us:

"As for the occult connection between 3 buildings -it has nothing to do with the pyramid and eye - but I am not even going to get into it - it would be a lost cause.

If you want you could study the first degree tracing board of the Mason's - but that is all I am going to give you."

Anyone got a link to where this theory is fully fleshed out?

[dtugg]

The one that takes the cake for me after I asked this same question in another forum:

occult reasons

Something to do with sacred geometry or the three buildings mimicing the pyramids of giza or maybe their bohemian grove-style satanism.

Wow.

[Praktik]

indeed... he DID mention the three pyramids of giza in a different thread recently, something about the towers being an intentional replica of them in some way - but it was just an aside in an unrelated thread so it never got fleshed out.

maybe the masons were pyramid enthusiasts?

I dont get the connection between their "first degree tracing board" and the pyramids but its probably because of my university "programming" and my unwillingness to challenge any of the assumptions I paid so dearly to "learn" in my time at school.

[jaydeehess]

As for the reason being to get rid of docuements;

There are two types of docs that supposedly were to be destroyed by lighting the building on fire then demolishing it several hours later; docuements contained in certain gov't offices in the building which, supposedly, were not backed up anywhere else. Exactly why anyone would want to do this comes down to a Les Nessman attitude of, "the DoJ was a tenent, they have docuements pertaining to their cases. Think about it"; and docuements and equipment pertaining to the use of WTC 7 as the command post for the demolition of the towers. However the safest thing to do with docuements of either type would be to cross shred them into bins or bags and then take them to another location and burn them. This is what happened to docuements on the military base that I spent 6 months at. There was a guard of two armed grunts watching the bags burn. They never saw the unshredded docuements, only the bags, and they were not allowed to open the bags before putting them into the incinerator, only stir the burning contents of the incinerator to ensure no piece went unburned.

The best way to get rid of equipment would be to remove it from the site altogether rather than risk that a FF or clean up crew see it.
If its just a hard drive then that is no harder than removing it from the computer and putting it in the inside pocket of a jacket. A metal shredder would suffice to make all data irretreivable but if you wished you could subject it to a very large alternatling magnetic field first.

One small cardboard sonontube wrapped with ~ 200 coils of #16 lamp cord. Place HDD in tube and run household current through the lamp cord until the wire burns. The resultant magnetic feild will scramble the HDD. Now you can shred the entire HDD. But wait there's more,,,,,, the above won't take all that long so now take the remains of the HDD and replace it in the middle of the 10th floor of WTC 7 about 30 minutes before demolishing the building.

[Galileo]

Has any twoofer ever given any reason that makes even a modicum of sense as to why the NWO blew up WTC7? Any twoofer that still posts here want to take a stab at it? Keep in mind that I am not interested in how you "know" it was a controlled demolition, I want know why they did it.

Either FL93 or FL23 was supposed to fly into it, but never made it. They blew up WTC 7 before anyone found the explosives.

[dtugg]

Either FL93 or FL23 was supposed to fly into it, but never made it. They blew up WTC 7 before anyone found the explosives.

I see. And the NWO planned take all that extra risk of flying a plane into and then destroying some building that nobody had ever heard of because _____________________? And the plane never made it there because ____________________?

Thanks in advance for illuminating me, Mr Galilei.

[Macgyver1968]

Y'all have it all wrong...the insiders just wanted to prove "7" is NOT a lucky number. :)

[Corsair 115]

What was the point of blowing up WTC7? Because the building itself was evil. Just as Project Satan produced a car of pure evil, the construction of WTC7 produced a building of pure evil. Thus it had to be destroyed.

[jaydeehess]

Either FL93 or FL23 was supposed to fly into it, but never made it. They blew up WTC 7 before anyone found the explosives.

Ok, I'll bite.

First off, why attack WTC 7 in the first place? It was not known around the world or even well known in the USA itself, still isn't. There would have been more to gain by attacking General Motors headquaters. That building would be rather unknown but the company itself is known world wide.

Aside from the active imagination of whomever came up with the senario you give, what evidence is there to bolster the contention?

How close did either aircraft come to WTC 7 before it ended up in its actual final location that day? How far away was it at its furthest?

Good thing the building caught fire due to the collapse of WTC 1 and that some large pieces of WTC 1 hit WTC 7 causing damage. It'd be embarrassing to have a building collapse with no fire or only broken windows.

So what was the reason for causing so much damage to WTC 3,4,5,6 that they also collapsed or had to be brought down? or the building on West Broadway, or the Deutcshe Bank Building

[Galileo]

I see. And the NWO planned take all that extra risk of flying a plane into and then destroying some building that nobody had ever heard of because _____________________? And the plane never made it there because ____________________?

Thanks in advance for illuminating me, Mr Galilei.

strike, your honor.

[Galileo]

What was the point of blowing up WTC7? Because the building itself was evil. Just as Project Satan produced a car of pure evil, the construction of WTC7 produced a building of pure evil. Thus it had to be destroyed.

The mass murderers who blew it up are evil.

[jaydeehess]

Point? There was no "point". The NWO is just plain eeeevil, man.

The mass murderers who blew it up are evil.

Comsat nailed it!

[beachnut]

Either FL93 or FL23 was supposed to fly into it, but never made it. They blew up WTC 7 before anyone found the explosives.
How do you make up nutcase idea like this? What do you use to make pure delusional posts?


A keyboard (that was funny, they blew up WTC7 and now they can't find the explosives that make no noise and leave no blast effects. Good one

[JamesB]

Either FL93 or FL23 was supposed to fly into it, but never made it. They blew up WTC 7 before anyone found the explosives.

Wow, that is an amazing example of circular logic.

[Drs_Res]

Either FL93 or FL23 was supposed to fly into it, but never made it. They blew up WTC 7 before anyone found the explosives.

So nobody working in the building, even the maintenance crews and bomb sniffing dogs, ever found any explosives in the building prior to 9/11.

The workers or the government or NIST did not look for explosive residues, so what makes you think that "they" would not just remove the explosives and not mention it.

This also does not mesh with the whole: "They cleared the area and planted the explosives while the building was burning." theory that I have heard in the past.

What was the topography of the area with the towers intact? How easy would it be to fly a passenger jet into WTC7? It was less than 1/2 the height of the towers and how tall were the surrounding buildings? I honestly don't know .

[jaydeehess]

something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Staten_Island_Ferry_terminal.jpg)

Or look at this pic (http://wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/7wtc_sunset.jpg)
In it the white building in the center is the new WTC 7. It is 5 stories taller than the original

[Galileo]

What was the topography of the area with the towers intact? How easy would it be to fly a passenger jet into WTC7? It was less than 1/2 the height of the towers and how tall were the surrounding buildings? I honestly don't know .

should be a cinch if he could pilot half as good as the pilot of FL77.

[beachnut]

should be a cinch if he could pilot half as good as the pilot of FL77.
Flight 77 was aiming at the largest office building, and you think WTC7 was target but loaded with silent explosives that leave no trace of blasts.

How do you make up such stupid ideas? What evidence do you use to make failed ideas on 911?

Fact is anyone can wreck a plane into a building or crash on the runway. Not crashing is a skill pilots strive for, so your cinch is stupid about pilot on 77 being good, he was bad, and if he had not had one of the largest targets to hit in the world he would have failed like his murdering buddies on flight 93. The terrorists only had to be just a slightly better than the believers of 911Truth.

[Galileo]

Wow, that is an amazing example of circular logic.

The motives of mass murderers are not determined by logic. They just hate America.

[Thunder]

The motives of mass murderers are not determined by logic. They just hate America.

wow...im impressed. did you just wake up from your truther coma or something???

[Galileo]

Flight 77 was aiming at the largest office building, and you think WTC7 was target but loaded with silent explosives that leave no trace of blasts.

How do you make up such stupid ideas? What evidence do you use to make failed ideas on 911?

Fact is anyone can wreck a plane into a building or crash on the runway. Not crashing is a skill pilots strive for, so your cinch is stupid about pilot on 77 being good, he was bad, and if he had not had one of the largest targets to hit in the world he would have failed like his murdering buddies on flight 93. The terrorists only had to be just a slightly better than the believers of 911Truth.



The blasts weren't silent, people heard them. Do you know that it is un-American to defend mass murderers?

[dtugg]

Do you know that it is un-American to defend mass murderers?

Why do you and your moron friends apologize for mass murderers all the time then?

[beachnut]

The blasts weren't silent, people heard them. Do you know that it is un-American to defend mass murderers?
You apologize for terrorists. You must hate the USA, and you will never understand 911, or have evidence to support you delusions, or what?

Why do you apologize for terrorists?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Why do you apologize for terrorists?
Attention. I've said it many times. How else do talentless people get the unwarranted attention they crave?

[JamesB]

The motives of mass murderers are not determined by logic. They just hate America.

I am not talking about their logic genius, I am talking yours. Or lack of logic, if you want to get technical.

[Galileo]

I am not talking about their logic genius, I am talking yours. Or lack of logic, if you want to get technical.

Galileo is the master of logic. Determining motives is not done by the deductive logic of the Peripathetics.

[TheRedWorm]

You really are a troll, aren't you "Galileo"?

[jaydeehess]

The motives of mass murderers are not determined by logic. They just hate America.

So basically your answer to the OP is "just because".

The real Galileo's bones must spin in their resting place every time you post.

[Corsair 115]

The mass murderers who blew it up are evil.


Indeed. I don't have a high opinion of Al-Qaeda either. Oh, wait, you weren't referring to Al-Qaeda, were you?

[metamars]

Has any twoofer ever given any reason that makes even a modicum of sense as to why the NWO blew up WTC7? Any twoofer that still posts here want to take a stab at it? Keep in mind that I am not interested in how you "know" it was a controlled demolition, I want know why they did it.

Has anybody done a serious estimate of what it would cost to fix WTC 7? Compared it to what it would cost to demolish and rebuild? My cousin is an architect, and she told me that it wouldn't take much deviance from code before a building is condemned. (Well, something like that. It's been a while.)

Of course, for entertainment purposes, one can construct any number of implausible theories. E.g.: the NWO realized that they had stocked too much thermite, and wanted to get rid of the extra. For one thing, the next false flag will involve bioterror, anyway. What's a vast, monolithic conspiratorial organization to do when their quartermasters screw up and order too much thermite? It's not like you can eat it. You can't even brush your teeth with it.

[EventHorizon]

Do you know that it is un-American to defend mass murderers?

It is? Doesn't the 6th amendment say that everyone had a right to be represented by an attorney? Therefore it is not un-American to defend mass murderers at all. Which is what truthers do every day so I guess they are just as American as I am.

[dtugg]

Has anybody done a serious estimate of what it would cost to fix WTC 7? Compared it to what it would cost to demolish and rebuild? My cousin is an architect, and she told me that it wouldn't take much deviance from code before a building is condemned. (Well, something like that. It's been a while.)

I'm not sure. I would bet that if it didn't collapse they probably would have had to destroy it anyway. Assuming it was destroyed intentionally and the motive was just to get rid of a badly damaged building that needed to go anyway, it still doesn't explain (1) Why there was a massive coverup regarding the whole thing which presumably involves the FDNY. (2) How the building was rigged for demolition so quickly. (3) How the building was rigged for demolition while it was on fire.

[BCR]

Doesn't the 6th amendment say that everyone had a right to be represented by an attorney?

Yes, but that was amended by the 28th Amendment enacted on 9/12/2001.

"Terrorists have the right to disappear from the face of the earth after having an opportunity to rat out their friends to Jack Bauer."

[cyclonic]

Some secret service agents and FBI guys were uncovering the secret pentagon weaponized explosive thermite operation when they were ambushed and killed by the bad feds and their bodies thrown into the building 7 fire, building 7 was then demolished to cover up the murders.

I know this is true because alex jones told me.

9FfZdIYAjC0

[tsig]

Yes, but that was amended by the 28th Amendment enacted on 9/12/2001.

"Terrorists have the right to disappear from the face of the earth after having an opportunity to rat out their friends to Jack Bauer."

Must be the same one that says "When the President is acting as Commander in Chief he can do no wrong" Then there's the one "We can ignore the Constitution to save it".

Well off topic here.

[tsig]

Some secret service agents and FBI guys were uncovering the secret pentagon weaponized explosive thermite operation when they were ambushed and killed by the bad feds and their bodies thrown into the building 7 fire, building 7 was then demolished to cover up the murders.

I know this is true because alex jones told me.

9FfZdIYAjC0


If AJ was right this government should have dissolved into an orgy of infighting that would have awed the Nazis.

(Ha, I got to Godwin a thread. At last)

[GStan]

Some secret service agents and FBI guys were uncovering the secret pentagon weaponized explosive thermite operation when they were ambushed and killed by the bad feds and their bodies thrown into the building 7 fire, building 7 was then demolished to cover up the murders.

I know this is true because alex jones told me.

9FfZdIYAjC0

Fantasy Island vid is interesting, but for a good laugh, watch the short one called "Alex Jones Kook Conman Nut Job".

ETA: here is direct link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQL-UpzWT1U) to it.

[SteveAustin]

So if we in the truth movement are not psychic and cannot read the minds of the real terrorists then we are wrong?

Is that your assumption here?

Why is it everywhere I go I find people demanding me to explain WHY the NWO (or whoever) would do this, or that, or the other thing???

Unless I were in on the conspiracy I can't know these things. Oh we could all make guesses and assumptions but all that leads to is the OCT supporters constantly moving the bar and constantly demanding more and more and more of our proof of our theories...when in reality all we need to do is show the "Official Conspiracy Theory" to be bogus, no need to come up with an alternative scenario. That's what a new truly independent, thorough and transparent investigation is for.

[Praktik]

So if we in the truth movement are not psychic and cannot read the minds of the real terrorists then we are wrong?

Is that your assumption here?

Why is it everywhere I go I find people demanding me to explain WHY the NWO (or whoever) would do this, or that, or the other thing???

Unless I were in on the conspiracy I can't know these things. Oh we could all make guesses and assumptions but all that leads to is the OCT supporters constantly moving the bar and constantly demanding more and more and more of our proof of our theories...when in reality all we need to do is show the "Official Conspiracy Theory" to be bogus, no need to come up with an alternative scenario. That's what a new truly independent, thorough and transparent investigation is for.

But this is disengenuous - of course I'm not familiar with what theories you in particular have promoted but many truthers have no trouble ascribing motive to the NWO when it suits their purposes: to garner public support for foreign wars, to get control of resources and strategic locations, to ram through domestic legislation. When it comes to the big picture I havent come across all that many truthers who refuse to ascribe motive. Another very common refrain is they did it because they're "evil".

When it comes to the minutiae of the day - why make 15 hijackers Saudi Arabian (threatening a crucial strategic relationship) and none of them Iraqi (when the admin tried their best to pin 9/11 on Saddam), why blow up WTC 7, why use a complicated and widespread conspiracy to launch a war in Iraq when shooting down a plane in the no-fly zone would have worked - they refuse to answer these questions and fall back to your position: we're just asking questions, how are we to know the mind of the NWO?

Well you (or more accurately, the movement with which you self-identify) pretends to know the mind of the NWO when its convenient, and feigns ignorance when its inconvenient.

[cyclonic]

Fantasy Island vid is interesting, but for a good laugh, watch the short one called "Alex Jones Kook Conman Nut Job".

ETA: here is direct link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQL-UpzWT1U) to it.
lol!
"I've seen the bodies in john wayne gaceys basement!" yes sure you did alex, we know you love the killer clown and often dress up like him and pursue your sick,twisted urges...............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6cW2acXvNE

[1337m4n]

So if we in the truth movement are not psychic and cannot read the minds of the real terrorists then we are wrong?

Is that your assumption here?

Why is it everywhere I go I find people demanding me to explain WHY the NWO (or whoever) would do this, or that, or the other thing???

Unless I were in on the conspiracy I can't know these things. Oh we could all make guesses and assumptions but all that leads to is the OCT supporters constantly moving the bar and constantly demanding more and more and more of our proof of our theories...when in reality all we need to do is show the "Official Conspiracy Theory" to be bogus, no need to come up with an alternative scenario. That's what a new truly independent, thorough and transparent investigation is for.

SteveAustin--

Please see this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113431) for my explanation of why the motive of the "NWO" is indeed important and relevant.

[GStan]

SteveAustin--

Please see this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113431) for my explanation of why the motive of the "NWO" is indeed important and relevant.

Steve,

Also check out this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77502&highlight=Evil+Genius) for an interesting analysis of motive on the part of the perp(s). (Mackey's Evil Genius thread.) At least read the opening post for some perspectives that you may not have considered.

[jaydeehess]

Has anybody done a serious estimate of what it would cost to fix WTC 7? Compared it to what it would cost to demolish and rebuild? My cousin is an architect, and she told me that it wouldn't take much deviance from code before a building is condemned. (Well, something like that. It's been a while.)

While it just might be a reason to demolish the building it would not be a reason to do it secretively. Since insurance will be paying out either way they would opt for the lesser expense and therefore keeping it quiet from the insurance co. is not a valid arguement.

We need only look at Banker's Trust which is being demolished due to impact damage it took on that day. It took time to assess it to see if it could be repaired. It couldn't. It was shored up sufficiently to allow demolition. It was far from the only structure that still stood at the end of the day which needed to be brought down, none of which were brought down by blowing them up, including the other WTC structures.

A senario as you write it would require that this building be first determined as unrepairable, then a plan developed for in place demolition as it burned, then that plan would have to be put into action and carried out. All of this would have to be done in 7 hours, in the chaos of the situation in NYC during that time, in absolute secret, in a fashion never even considered for any building demolition anywhere in the world ever before.
While impossibly complicated conspiracies might work in the movies then rarely, if ever, do in real life.

Of course, for entertainment purposes, one can construct any number of implausible theories. E.g.: the NWO realized that they had stocked too much thermite, and wanted to get rid of the extra. For one thing, the next false flag will involve bioterror, anyway. What's a vast, monolithic conspiratorial organization to do when their quartermasters screw up and order too much thermite? It's not like you can eat it. You can't even brush your teeth with it.

No, you can simply take it to a weapons range and burn it off in secret rather than do it in an area being watched by every news organization in the world.

That senario is an extrapolation from the idea that in order to destroy sensitive docuements or equipment the best way to do so is to destroy the building they are in. In fact the best way to destroy sensitive docs is to cross shred them, remove the remains to an isloated area and burn them. Similarly better ways to destroy equipment is also available.

[jaydeehess]

So if we in the truth movement are not psychic and cannot read the minds of the real terrorists then we are wrong?

Is that your assumption here?

Why is it everywhere I go I find people demanding me to explain WHY the NWO (or whoever) would do this, or that, or the other thing???

Unless I were in on the conspiracy I can't know these things. Oh we could all make guesses and assumptions but all that leads to is the OCT supporters constantly moving the bar and constantly demanding more and more and more of our proof of our theories...when in reality all we need to do is show the "Official Conspiracy Theory" to be bogus, no need to come up with an alternative scenario. That's what a new truly independent, thorough and transparent investigation is for.

Galileo's answer is simply that the NWO is eeevil. Sorry that does not cut it. Humans do complex tasks for reasons. Psychotics even have reasons for their actions even if no one else will be able to understand them. However if the answer to why no one can figure out why the NWO does things the way they do is because they are psychotically twisted then it does not explain how an organization populated by such psychotics can have survived. It would be nigh on impossible for a large group to all share the exact same psychosis.

It also seems like you may be asking why we do not know the mind of God (or God-like entity). Is that how the TM sees the NWO?

[fezzic]

It was a necessary act on the part of the NWO. An unspoken concession to the CT movement, in general, to make it possible for them to try to prove that the NWO carried out the demolition. A challenge!

That would actually be diabolical. Deliberately destroying the building for no other reason than to make others lose their mind, and credibility, trying to prove that the building was deliberately destroyed. The whole motive for the action was that there was no motive.

How's that?

:)

[JamesB]

It was a necessary act on the part of the NWO. An unspoken concession to the CT movement, in general, to make it possible for them to try to prove that the NWO carried out the demolition. A challenge!


:)

Actually there is much to that theory. Much of conspiracy theory logic is so circular that arguments exist for no other purpose than to support themselves. For example, why did the supposed conspirators wire every floor of the towers in a "classic controlled demolition" rather than just use enough explosives to collapse the floors right where the actual damage was, which would have achieved the same basic result at much less risk to themselves?

Well, the answer is, because if they didn't, the conspiracy theory community would have no "evidence" to point to in order to unveil their crimes. These theories are not based on any coherent logic, but in a desparate plea for some clue to solve the "mystery".

[Mince]

...demanding more and more and more of our proof of our theories...when in reality all we need to do is show the "Official Conspiracy Theory" to be bogus, no need to come up with an alternative scenario.

Truther A: There were planes that hit WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Truther B: There were no planes that hit WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Truther C: Why don't the debunkers believe us?

I'm kinda looking for empirical evidence, not presumption based on what is compelling or unknown.

[Dave Rogers]

Truther A: There were planes that hit WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Truther B: There were no planes that hit WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Truther C: Why don't the "debunkers" believe us?

No, no, no.

Truther A: The 9/11 Commission claims that the planes were hijacked, but there's clear evidence that the hijackers never existed.

Truther B: The 9/11 Commission claims that the hijackers were members of al-Qaeda, but there's clear evidence that they were trained at US air bases.

Truther C: The 9/11 Commission claims that the hijackers flew the planes, but there's clear evidence that they were incompetent pilots.

Truthers A-C: See? We've all proved the 9/11 Commission is wrong!

Dave

[eromitlab]

when in reality all we need to do is show the "Official Conspiracy Theory" to be bogus, no need to come up with an alternative scenario.

Ah, I see David Ray Griffin has taught you well, young truther.

[ravdin]

Why is it everywhere I go I find people demanding me to explain WHY the NWO (or whoever) would do this, or that, or the other thing???

Since you believe you're right and we're all wrong, why aren't you asking yourself this question? Some nefarious organization pulled off the biggest crime and cover up in history, at enormous expense and risk, for what exactly?

Come on, now. Don't tell us you never thought about who pulled the strings and benefited from this caper.

[GStan]

Since you believe you're right and we're all wrong, why aren't you asking yourself this question? Some nefarious organization pulled off the biggest crime and cover up in history, at enormous expense and risk, for what exactly?

Come on, now. Don't tell us you never thought about who pulled the strings and benefited from this caper.

I think its obvious that it was done to cover-up the massive embarrassment that the BBC would have suffered from reporting that the building had sploded already when it was in fact still standing. Public embarrassment = less people watching the news = shrinking ad $revenues$. Always follow the money.

[ravdin]

I think its obvious that it was done to cover-up the massive embarrassment that the BBC would have suffered from reporting that the building had sploded already when it was in fact still standing. Public embarrassment = less people watching the news = shrinking ad $revenues$. Always follow the money.

The BBC already shot Kennedy and faked the moon landings. Don't tell me they did this too!

[GregoryUrich]

I have never heard a truther argue this, but it might make sense that if the CIA looses control over a facility, they are required to scuttle the building to protect agents and not risk compromising national security.

[johnny karate]

I have never heard a truther argue this, but it might make sense that if the CIA looses control over a facility, they are required to scuttle the building to protect agents and not risk compromising national security.

But what doesn't make even the slightest lick of sense is how the CIA managed to "scuttle" WTC7 while it was on fire and without any of the hundreds of eyewitnesses noticing.

[jaydeehess]

But what doesn't make even the slightest lick of sense is how the CIA managed to "scuttle" WTC7 while it was on fire and without any of the hundreds of eyewitnesses noticing.


duh-uh
Since the analogy is with a warship then one must expect that all buildings that house CIA offices must have pre-set 'scuttling' explosives in the same manner in which a warship has its sea cocks.

[GStan]

duh-uh
Since the analogy is with a warship then one must expect that all buildings that house CIA offices must have pre-set 'scuttling' explosives in the same manner in which a warship has its sea cocks.

Self-Destruct Voice: Thank you for pushing the self-destruct button.

...

Self-Destruct Voice: Ten... nine... eight... six...
President Skroob: Six? What happened to seven?
Self-Destruct Voice: Just kidding! Seven... six... five... four... three... two... one... have a nice day.
President Skroob, Colonel Sandurz, Dark Helmet: Thank you!

[jaydeehess]

Self-Destruct Voice: Thank you for pushing the self-destruct button.

...

Self-Destruct Voice: Ten... nine... eight... six...
President Skroob: Six? What happened to seven?
Self-Destruct Voice: Just kidding! Seven... six... five... four... three... two... one... have a nice day.
President Skroob, Colonel Sandurz, Dark Helmet: Thank you!

hey, its not like it hasn't been vomited up by the CTLF (conspiracy theory loony fringe) before

[1337m4n]

Zee whole pless weel self-deestrrukt!

[mark4mark]

Well how else could "they" divert everyone's attention away from a structure hardly anyone knew existed before 911?

Obviously.;)

[Galileo]

The BBC already shot Kennedy and faked the moon landings. Don't tell me they did this too!

Fail.

[Aitch]

I think its obvious that it was done to cover-up the massive embarrassment that the BBC would have suffered from reporting that the building had sploded already when it was in fact still standing. Public embarrassment = less people watching the news = shrinking ad $revenues$. Always follow the money.


Er, you do know that the BBC is funded from a License Fee and doesn't have any ad revenue?

[GStan]

Er, you do know that the BBC is funded from a License Fee and doesn't have any ad revenue?

I do now. ;)

But my suggestion was in the spririt of trutherism, which doesn't ever seem to bother verifying such fundamental information.

[Aitch]

I do now. ;)

But my suggestion was in the spririt of trutherism, which doesn't ever seem to bother verifying such fundamental information.

Fairy nuff. :)

It was, IIRC, Jonathan Miller, soi-disant polymath, who pointed out that for certain humorous writing, we need a font called 'Ironic'. ;)

[jaydeehess]

Simliar is the CT cliam that doctors make people sick so that patients will have to pay them more money when in fact in much of the western world doctors are funded by tax money. My GP gets paid the same if I have the flu or if I have cancer. If he refers me to a specialist he gets no 'kick-back' from the specialist and thus my GP has no impetus whatsover to make me any sicker than a mild infection which he can treat. Yet the CT's do claim that all manner of major illness is CAUSED by doctors in a MIHOP scheme that makes 911 look puny.

[apathoid]

What was the point of blowing up WTC7


Office Depot was out of paper shredders.
Silverstein had to devise a big money losing insurance scam.
To see if anyone would notice.

[Thunder]

the building was an eye sore. it had to go.

[KreeL]

If you were a military man planning the WTC destruction for 9/11, and you wanted to conceal the obvious (see Randi about illusions), how would your plan look when you were finished? The entire WTC is your playground, and one of your prerequisites is BIG SHOW. You know, shock and awe.

Now, a production this big would require backup plans in case of certain failures. Most military planners will attest to that.

After you place yourself in that mindset...what was plan A, plan B, plan C?

To catch criminals, you must think like one.

[ozeco41]

If you were a military man planning the WTC destruction for 9/11, and you wanted to conceal the obvious (see Randi about illusions), how would your plan look when you were finished? The entire WTC is your playground, and one of your prerequisites is BIG SHOW. You know, shock and awe.

Now, a production this big would require backup plans in case of certain failures. Most military planners will attest to that.

After you place yourself in that mindset...what was plan A, plan B, plan C?

To catch criminals, you must think like one.
I agree with much of that. I saw the WTC Tower collapses on TV in Wales - they showed the plane collision and the collapse in sequence - it was ages before I realised the ~1 hour delay.

My first (civilian) thoughts were horror and "Oh you evil bastards"

(Actually my first thoughts were "Is this some special effects in a movie?" ...but pass on that)

Then my civilian brain gave way to my military one and I revised to "Oh you brilliantly clever devious and evil bastards - well done" (Remember - Military Brain admiring the professional job.)

At that stage thinking it was "Crash immediatly followed by collapse" I saw it simply as "hit some distance from top - top bit falls and crushes the rest."

Lots of people on both sides of the argument are still locked into that view of events. Suits the truthers because it requires massive energy which they can claim isn't there. Then the "no demolition" debunkers - even some of the best - still make the same error. Lucky for them there really was energy to spare so thew get the answer they want but their logic is wrong.

Later I had to work through the real scenario and only two years back felt challenged to work out how it actually happened. An aquaintance is a "committed to any conspiracy" type. UFO's and Vapour Trails under the NWO are his thing with 9/11 a lesser interest. So I tackled the technical question of demolition or not. I then got involved in an on line forum and decided to deal only with technical. Simple really - explosives (or incendiaries) neither know nor care who put them in place or pushed the button. The technical evidence stands apart from the conspiracy and social domain stuff.

So it was 5-6 years after 9/11 before I worked out how it happend and became familiar with most of the funny ideas.

Now back to your "put yourself in the mind of the other side".

True. Around the Kuwait Ware (Gulf War 1) I was responsible for emergency management for a large water authority (Sydney, NSW, Aust) and worked through all the scenarios for terrorist retaliation against Aust as allies with US, UK et al in Gulf 1.

Best approach going - put yourself in their mindset.

Also worked with Aussie army on how to demolish water supplies but drifting too far OT. So I agree - think like they do.

It would be easy to bring down WTC Towers provided no interuption and no need to conceal activities. But covertly achieving it as a top down collapse which looked like Aircraft caused it is a far more difficult trick. Even now with benefit of hindsight.

[9/11-investigator]

Has any twoofer ever given any reason that makes even a modicum of sense as to why the NWO blew up WTC7? Any twoofer that still posts here want to take a stab at it? Keep in mind that I am not interested in how you "know" it was a controlled demolition, I want know why they did it.

A few days ago I believe I heard DRG saying that the first explosions in WTC7 took place before the first tower fell.

Speculation: there was a plane destined to remote control crash into WTC7 as well but that something went wrong with the remote control. And there was WTC7, stuffed with explosives for the whole world to see.

Can't have that, therefore push the button anyway and invent 'we decided to pull' and 'thermal expansion' afterwards.

[Minadin]

David Ray Griffin is an idiot. I wouldn't pay any attention to a word he says.

[dtugg]

A few days ago I believe I heard DRG saying that the first explosions in WTC7 took place before the first tower fell.

Speculation: there was a plane destined to remote control crash into WTC7 as well but that something went wrong with the remote control. And there was WTC7, stuffed with explosives for the whole world to see.

Can't have that, therefore push the button anyway and invent 'we decided to pull' and 'thermal expansion' afterwards.

Sorry, quoting DRG doesn't cut it, Nazi.

[stateofgrace]

A few days ago I believe I heard DRG saying that the first explosions in WTC7 took place before the first tower fell.

Speculation: there was a plane destined to remote control crash into WTC7 as well but that something went wrong with the remote control. And there was WTC7, stuffed with explosives for the whole world to see.

Can't have that, therefore push the button anyway and invent 'we decided to pull' and 'thermal expansion' afterwards.

So let me get this straight.

You want everybody to speculate that an explosive device was set off, for no reason, inside a building that was packed with explosives, before a plane that was remotely controlled, didn’t hit it, right?

In your strange speculative world why would somebody set off an explosive device before your remotely controlled plane had hit it? And then wait another 6 hours before demolishing the entire building?

Oh, incidentally, your hero, Jones as had published some seven books on the subject of 911, any idea how many people he has personally interviewed and have contributed to his books who were actually there?

[UNLoVedRebel]

A few days ago I believe I heard DRG saying that the first explosions in WTC7 took place before the first tower fell.

Speculation: there was a plane destined to remote control crash into WTC7 as well but that something went wrong with the remote control. And there was WTC7, stuffed with explosives for the whole world to see.

Can't have that, therefore push the button anyway and invent 'we decided to pull' and 'thermal expansion' afterwards.

What an incredible lack of imagination. If you want to steal someone's "arguments", make sure one of his "arguments" isn't "the twin towers fell faster than free-fall speed through the air."

[KreeL]

So let me get this straight.

You want everybody to speculate that an explosive device was set off, for no reason, inside a building that was packed with explosives, before a plane that was remotely controlled, didn’t hit it, right?

In your strange speculative world why would somebody set off an explosive device before your remotely controlled plane had hit it? And then wait another 6 hours before demolishing the entire building?

Oh, incidentally, your hero, Jones as had published some seven books on the subject of 911, any idea how many people he has personally interviewed and have contributed to his books who were actually there?


^Here is a prime example of a non-toof poster with zero imagination.^

The tower 7 was imploded because it was already a part of the plan. Simple to understand if you just look at it. Whether it was imploded as Plan A is highly doubtful. The lobby probably blew out but the rest of the demolition got knocked offline/went south - perhaps because they didn't expect a huge piece of cladding from the north tower taking out 20 floors. I believe that after the demolition of the north tower, they were as surprised as hell to see WTC7 still standing. Hence a scramble to get it back online for a demo in the afternoon (plan B). Silverstein's stupid 'pull it' comment simply played right into their hands, whether on purpose or not.:cool:

[stateofgrace]

^Here is a prime example of a non-toof poster with zero imagination.^

The tower 7 was imploded because it was already a part of the plan. Simple to understand if you just look at it. Whether it was imploded as Plan A is highly doubtful. The lobby probably blew out but the rest of the demolition got knocked offline/went south - perhaps because they didn't expect a huge piece of cladding from the north tower taking out 20 floors. I believe that after the demolition of the north tower, they were as surprised as hell to see WTC7 still standing. Hence a scramble to get it back online for a demo in the afternoon (plan B). Silverstein's stupid 'pull it' comment simply played right into their hands, whether on purpose or not.:cool:

And here is a prime example of a twoofie poster with an over active imagination and zero evidence to back up a single word he as posted.

[KreeL]

Zero evidence? Bahahahaha...WTC7 came down -- did it not? Fire brought it down? Isn't that what they told you to say? ROFL

[T.A.M.]

And here is a prime example of a twoofie poster with an over active imagination and zero evidence to back up a single word he as posted.

oh noes. Deh gotz eveeedence. I means, da building cowapzed instead of tipping wike a quistmas twee...didiinit?

Kreel, either unable to contribute anything to the new "moderated" thread on the topic that brought him back, or not having the patience for it, has now decided to come trolling in other threads...

I suspect HI will be here any day now to do the same.

TAM:)

[KreeL]

I am simply helping a clueless non-toofer out. You know, the one that started this thread. Now if he really didn't want to know, then why did he ask such a stupid question?:confused:

Think for a change, TAM.:rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

I am simply helping a clueless non-toofer out. You know, the one that started this thread. Now if he really didn't want to know, then why did he ask such a stupid question?:confused:

Think for a change, TAM.:rolleyes:

alwight, I'll give dat tinking ting a twy.

TAM:D

[stateofgrace]

Zero evidence? Bahahahaha...WTC7 came down -- did it not? Fire brought it down? Isn't that what they told you to say? ROFL

Stop babbling, back this up with evidence.


The tower 7 was imploded because it was already a part of the plan.

And this

Whether it was imploded as Plan A is highly doubtful

And this

I believe that after the demolition of the north tower, they were as surprised as hell to see WTC7 still standing.


And the rest of your nonsense. Got any evidence at all to back up your babbling speculation or are you just going to post more meaningless words?

[A W Smith]

The tower 7 was imploded because it was already a part of the plan.

And what plan was that? to re-open Greenwich street between Barclay and Vesey??

[johnny karate]

Zero evidence? Bahahahaha...WTC7 came down -- did it not? Fire brought it down? Isn't that what they told you to say? ROFL

The FDNY are part of the "they" you imply are covering up the truth behind the destruction of WTC7. Why do you think the FDNY would lie to the world?

[fullflavormenthol]

Oh no! They must have found one of our secret govment playbooks! Oh I hope they don't discover that it was really Elvis in a flying saucer that brought down the towers! It looks like our conspiracy to erase the meal of dinner is about to be uncovered...oops..I gave it away.........

[KreeL]

The FDNY are part of the "they" you imply are covering up the truth behind the destruction of WTC7. Why do you think the FDNY would lie to the world?

I never said they were. Can't you read?:confused:

[johnny karate]

I never said they were. Can't you read?:confused:

Can't you see the implications of your theories?

The FDNY is on record stating WTC7 collapsed due to reasons in accordance with the official version of events.

Not a member of the FDNY has come forward to refute this position.

How do you account for several hundred experienced fire and building safety professionals witnessing a controlled demolition firsthand, and then denying to the world it took place?

[KreeL]

Can't you see the implications of your theories?

The FDNY is on record stating WTC7 collapsed due to reasons in accordance with the official version of events.

Not a member of the FDNY has come forward to refute this position.

How do you account for several hundred experienced fire and building safety professionals witnessing a controlled demolition firsthand, and then denying to the world it took place?

The FDNY is on record stating they didn't want an arson investigation? Isn't crime scene examination for accelerants and thermite part of the NY fire code?

You better get your head screwed on a bit tighter.:D

[dtugg]

The FDNY is on record stating they didn't want an arson investigation? Isn't crime scene examination for accelerants and thermite part of the NY fire code?

You better get your head screwed on a bit tighter.:D

Explain this, twoofer:

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

[johnny karate]

The FDNY is on record stating they didn't want an arson investigation? Isn't crime scene examination for accelerants and thermite part of the NY fire code?

This has nothing to do with what I asked you.

I'll repeat the question you dodged:
How do you account for several hundred experienced fire and building safety professionals witnessing a controlled demolition firsthand, and then denying to the world it took place?

[KreeL]

What do they have to deny? I know that many of them were incredulous at the rapid destruction of a crime scene. That many of them wondered why protocols weren't followed. That many of them witnessed explosions and heard explosions.

What did NIST say again regarding WTC7? Oh yeah, they had no evidence of explosions within the tower. Eyewitness testimony isn't evidence enough for them apparently?

Enough firefighters searching for answers joined together to form firefightersfor911truth.com that you should see what they have to say. That is...:rolleyes: if you really care to find out.

[johnny karate]

What do they have to deny?

That a 47-story building was imploded right in front of them. Truthers claim you can obviously tell WTC7 was a controlled demolition by watching a video clip of the collapse. Hundreds of FDNY firefighters witnessed this event firsthand. Not one of them has expressed a belief it was a controlled demolition.

I know that many of them were incredulous at the rapid destruction of a crime scene.

Who are they and what did they say? Please link to sources.

That many of them wondered why protocols weren't followed.

Who are they and what did they say? Please link to sources.

That many of them witnessed explosions and heard explosions.

And exactly none of them attributed these explosions to anything other than what would normally be experienced in a burning, collapsing building.

What did NIST say again regarding WTC7? Oh yeah, they had no evidence of explosions within the tower. Eyewitness testimony isn't evidence enough for them apparently?

We're not discussing NIST. Please try and stay focused.

Enough firefighters searching for answers joined together to form firefightersfor911truth.com that you should see what they have to say. That is...:rolleyes: if you really care to find out.

That website is a joke. Please provide the name of one FDNY firefighter who is a verified member.

[KreeL]

Self-pwnage much?:D

You claimed none doubt the official story. A website where they say the opposite has been created. I didn't create it. Firefighters did.

Go cry in your beer with your backslapping buds.

[dtugg]

Self-pwnage much?:D

You claimed none doubt the official story. A website where they say the opposite has been created. I didn't create it. Firefighters did.

Go cry in your beer with your backslapping buds.

You are the worst troll ever.

[KreeL]

I simply answer questions. The question asked by this thread I have answered.

Non-toofers are in denial of all real eyewitness and physical evidence concerning 9/11. You can show them - they can't see. You can provide written testimonies - they can't read. You can show science - they can't understand.

Nothing new for you here. You can take your toys and go home now.

[A W Smith]

Enough firefighters searching for answers joined together to form firefightersfor911truth.com that you should see what they have to say. That is...:rolleyes: if you really care to find out.

I see No FDNY members on your flaky little firebugsfor911truth petition there Kreel troll. Why is that? Why don't you take your little petition and go to these locations to get it signed?


http://www.nycfire.net/mnfiremap

[The Platypus]

I simply answer questions. The question asked by this thread I have answered.

Non-toofers are in denial of all real eyewitness and physical evidence concerning 9/11. You can show them - they can't see. You can provide written testimonies - they can't read. You can show science - they can't understand.

Nothing new for you here. You can take your toys and go home now.

It's captain ironic! :eek:

[johnny karate]

You claimed none doubt the official story.

Thats actually not what I said. But hey, don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your delusions.

A website where they say the opposite has been created. I didn't create it. Firefighters did.

Ahem...
That website is a joke. Please provide the name of one FDNY firefighter who is a verified member.

Paying attention clearly isn't your strong suit.

No one in the FDNY has expressed a belief that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, despite the fact that many of them witnessed its collpase firsthand. Your intellectually dishonest shenanigans do nothing to change that.

You lose.

[9/11-investigator]

I simply answer questions. The question asked by this thread I have answered.

Non-toofers are in denial of all real eyewitness and physical evidence concerning 9/11. You can show them - they can't see. You can provide written testimonies - they can't read. You can show science - they can't understand.

Nothing new for you here. You can take your toys and go home now.

On this forum there is no real difference perceived between a truther and a troll, is there.

Wasn't it dtugg himself who started this thread asking:

"Has any twoofer ever given any reason that makes even a modicum of sense as to why the NWO blew up WTC7? Any twoofer that still posts here want to take a stab at it? Keep in mind that I am not interested in how you "know" it was a controlled demolition, I want know why they did it."

So he shouldn't be surprised when he gets an answer.

P.S. did you pack your suntan oil, dtugg?

[dtugg]

Nazi, I was asking for a rational explanation. No twoofer has provided one yet.

I don't need suntan lotion. And do I have to go through with your Nazi fantasy of sending teh joooz to Madagaskar even through I am not a jooo?

[UNLoVedRebel]

On this forum there is no real difference perceived between a truther and a troll, is there.

Wasn't it dtugg himself who started this thread asking:

"Has any twoofer ever given any reason that makes even a modicum of sense as to why the NWO blew up WTC7? Any twoofer that still posts here want to take a stab at it? Keep in mind that I am not interested in how you "know" it was a controlled demolition, I want know why they did it."

So he shouldn't be surprised when he gets an answer.

P.S. did you pack your suntan oil, dtugg?
What answer? You mean this "answer".
Speculation: there was a plane destined to remote control crash into WTC7 as well but that something went wrong with the remote control. And there was WTC7, stuffed with explosives for the whole world to see.

Can't have that, therefore push the button anyway and invent 'we decided to pull' and 'thermal expansion' afterwards.

That was more of a schizophrenia symptom than it was an answer.

[KreeL]

Nazi, I was asking for a rational explanation. No twoofer has provided one yet.

I don't need suntan lotion. And do I have to go through with your Nazi fantasy of sending teh joooz to Madagaskar even through I am not a jooo?

You weren't asking for an explanation? My answer wasn't good enough for you? So what's your explanation? What talking points were given to you by NIST? Fire? NIST admitted they didn't even check the debris for arson because they ignored over 100 eyewitnesses and audio concerning EXPLOSIONS! Why?

How convenient for you! You are on the same side as the cover-up - feel better now?:p

[dtugg]

You weren't asking for an explanation? My answer wasn't good enough for you? So what's your explanation? What talking points were given to you by NIST? Fire? NIST admitted they didn't even check the debris for arson because they ignored over 100 eyewitnesses and audio concerning EXPLOSIONS! Why?

How convenient for you! You are on the same side as the cover-up - feel better now?:p

My explanation is that you're a disinfo agent because I am not sure if it is possible for somebody to be as dumb as you pretend to be.

[KreeL]

That's not an explanation. THAT'S a LAME excuse.

Try again. This time with feeling.

[jaydeehess]

Is this your 'explanation' as to why WTC 7 was supposedly brought down?

If you were a military man planning the WTC destruction for 9/11, and you wanted to conceal the obvious (see Randi about illusions), how would your plan look when you were finished? The entire WTC is your playground, and one of your prerequisites is BIG SHOW. You know, shock and awe.

Now, a production this big would require backup plans in case of certain failures. Most military planners will attest to that.

After you place yourself in that mindset...what was plan A, plan B, plan C?

To catch criminals, you must think like one.

If so then it amounts to "because they could" and as such fits well into a circular arguement in which WTC 7 was a CD because WTC 1 & 2 were and WTC 1 & 2 were and part of the proof of it is that WTC 7 was.

We are told after all, that WTC 7 is the 'smoking gun' most compelling case for CD and now you are stating that WTC 1 & 2 were brought down for shock and awe and to cap it off they decided to also bring down one other adjacent building, WTC 7.

So how about the rest of the WTC complex. All CD's or were 1,2 and 7 special?

[Grizzly Bear]

After you place yourself in that mindset...what was plan A, plan B, plan C?

To catch criminals, you must think like one.
They must be bad at what they do... Clearly they felt so comfortable with their plans that they just decided to demolish another building just for the hell of it... Well then again it is individuals such as yourself that contend this whole operation was done with military precision yet their entire plan in unraveled in the time it takes to write a single post on an internet forum... heh

[Vic73]

Has any twoofer ever given any reason that makes even a modicum of sense as to why the NWO blew up WTC7? Any twoofer that still posts here want to take a stab at it? Keep in mind that I am not interested in how you "know" it was a controlled demolition, I want know why they did it.



I'd also like the twoofers to explain why, if it was an inside job, the government would warn the firefighters about the collapse of WTC 7 but not the twin towers?

[Dog Town]

I'd also like the twoofers to explain why, if it was an inside job, the government would warn the firefighters about the collapse of WTC 7 but not the twin towers?

First off, in twoofer world,( known as Wooville) the FDNY "pulled" 7. Yeah, good luck trying to make sense of that!

[Thunder]

I'd also like the twoofers to explain why, if it was an inside job, the government would warn the firefighters about the collapse of WTC 7 but not the twin towers?

The NWO felt bad for the 250+ dead FDNY in the towers, and decided to prevent any further loss of life.

[Grimstad]

Flight 77 was aiming at the largest office building, and you think WTC7 was target but loaded with silent explosives that leave no trace of blasts.

How do you make up such stupid ideas? What evidence do you use to make failed ideas on 911?

Fact is anyone can wreck a plane into a building or crash on the runway. Not crashing is a skill pilots strive for, so your cinch is stupid about pilot on 77 being good, he was bad, and if he had not had one of the largest targets to hit in the world he would have failed like his murdering buddies on flight 93. The terrorists only had to be just a slightly better than the believers of 911Truth.



LOL. Yes. Flying is the second most thrilling thing a man can do. Landing is the first.

[BigAl]

A few days ago I believe I heard DRG saying that the first explosions in WTC7 took place before the first tower fell.


Did he says "first tower" or "tower 1"? They are not the same thing.
If he said "Tower 1", he was right but misleading.

The first tower to fall was the South tower and lots of people were in the North Tower or in WTC7 and didn't know what they heard and felt was the collapse of the south tower. Lots of people used "explosion" to describe what they experience. That is the source of most of the cherry-picked quotes from firemen, the didn't know what happened.

"explosion" is just a word for "loud noise".

[BigAl]

You weren't asking for an explanation? My answer wasn't good enough for you? So what's your explanation? What talking points were given to you by NIST? Fire? NIST admitted they didn't even check the debris for arson because they ignored over 100 eyewitnesses and audio concerning EXPLOSIONS! Why?

How convenient for you! You are on the same side as the cover-up - feel better now?:p

The is no audio showing man-made explosions at WTC. If you cite sources, I'd like to see them. If there was, it would be on page 1 of every Twoofer web page made over the past 7 years and I would have to ask what yo are speaking of.

There are two YouTube movies that what is clearly fake explosions. "9/11 Mysteries is one of them. The name of the other is in my notes.