Why did they "pull" tower seven?

[JLord]

I am a bit of a newby when it comes to the 911 truth arguments and this question is mainly for 911 truthers although someone else might be able to answer as the question calls for a bit of speculation...

It stems from the Coast to Coast AM debate that took place last weekend. I just listened to it today and as usual there was a lot of talk about building seven, and its apparent deliberate demolition. This question was raised but the "truthers" on show did not offer an answer, instead just saying they weren't going to speculate and they just wanted an investigation and so on. And the point was dropped.

But I am curious, is there any possible scenario where building seven would have had to be destroyed as part of a conspiracy? The main buildings were already hit and already destroyed. Surely the damage had already been done and the point had been made, so what difference would the destruction of building seven make?

I can't think of any reason but I'm sure there are people who have. So I am curious what plausible reasons could there be. Feel free to make wild speculations to try to craft any scenario where the deliberate destruction of building seven fits into any sort of conspiracy that you can think up. I'm just trying to sort through what types of conspiracy theories are still plausible if building seven was destroyed as part of the conspiracy.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The main twoofer claim regarding the motive for destroying building seven is that they could not find a power outlet for the paper shredder.

I am not kidding. It's what they actually believe.

[bill smith]

A better way of putting the question might be ' why did they have to pull WTC7 ''

[carlitos]

There were CIA and other super-secret offices in the building, so they had to blow it up to hide the paperwork involved with blowing up the other towers. Apparently, using a shredder or wiping hard drives would have been insufficient. Also, building 7 is where "they" kept the homing beacon that the planes used to find the towers, because they were really hard to see from a plane otherwise.

[PlanosLie]

"The main twoofer claim regarding the motive for destroying building seven is that they could not find a power outlet for the paper shredder."
>>>

Statement, without a link or a quote? Why?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

"The main twoofer claim regarding the motive for destroying building seven is that they could not find a power outlet for the paper shredder."
>>>

Statement, without a link or a quote? Why?

It's common knowledge.

[bill smith]

There were CIA and other super-secret offices in the building, so they had to blow it up to hide the paperwork involved with blowing up the other towers. Apparently, using a shredder or wiping hard drives would have been insufficient. Also, building 7 is where "they" kept the homing beacon that the planes used to find the towers, because they were really hard to see from a plane otherwise.

Red herrings all..

[GlennB]

But I am curious, is there any possible scenario where building seven would have had to be destroyed as part of a conspiracy? The main buildings were already hit and already destroyed. Surely the damage had already been done and the point had been made, so what difference would the destruction of building seven make?



Hi JLord :)

Some say #7 contained incriminating documentary evidence of horrible financial fraudstering and that demolishing the building was the way to go.

Some say it contained the command+control bunker for the WTC1+2 CD and that demolishing the building was the way to go.

Some say that Silverstein was a 9/11 CT insider and spotted the chance for a quick insurance payout on #7 and that demolishing the building was the way to go.

Some say that the destruction of WTC1+2 wasn't quite enough "shock+awe" for one day and that demolishing the building was the way to go.

Er ... that's it.

It's all a load of bollocks really.

eta: lack of parking spaces in south Manhattan has been mentioned, but I don't give that theory much credence.

[TexasJack]

The main twoofer claim regarding the motive for destroying building seven is that they could not find a power outlet for the paper shredder.

I am not kidding. It's what they actually believe.

Now that's quote mining. It was actually a Super-Double-Duper Model 108 shredder, the top of the line model at the time.

[Thunder]

as there is no physical evidence that WTC 7 was demolished, the question is pointless.

[DGM]

A better way of putting the question might be ' why did they have to pull WTC7 ''
And that would be? Come on Bill, this has gotten olod!

[jaydeehess]

Short answer is none one, including 'they' pulled WTC 7.

Silverstein used the word 'pull' in the context of pulling the fire fighting effort in WTC 7 in order to ensure no more lives were lost while trying to fight a fire without sufficient water pressure or personnel to do so.

'Pull' , when used in a controlled demolitions sense, means litterally to cable the structure and use heavy machinery to pull it over.

[bill smith]

And that would be? Come on Bill, this has gotten olod!

Well first you would have to ask yourself how many buildings in New York were pre-fitted with explosives/incendiaries on 9/11 ?

Surely not more than WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7 ?

So what other similarities did WTC7 have with the Twin Towers ?

The Twins were hit by planes but where was the plane for WTC7 ?

Was there a hitch somewhere ?

[RedIbis]

The main twoofer claim regarding the motive for destroying building seven is that they could not find a power outlet for the paper shredder.

I am not kidding. It's what they actually believe.

Who's "they"?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Who's "they"?

You and your fellow tin-foilers.

[Myriad]

Only when Truthers know who pulled Building 7 will they figure out why.

Only when Truthers know how they pulled Building 7 will they figure out who.

Only when Truthers know why they pulled Building 7 will they figure out how.

So, basically they're screwed. :D

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well first you would have to ask yourself how many buildings in New York were pre-fitted with explosives/incendiaries on 9/11 ?

None, zero, zip, zilch, nada.

So what other similarities did WTC7 have with the Twin Towers ?

All three were subjected to physical stresses and massive fires for which they were not designed.

The Twins were hit by planes but where was the plane for WTC7 ?

WTC7 was hit by thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling from the north tower.

[bill smith]

None, zero, zip, zilch, nada.



All three were subjected to physical stresses and massive fires for which they were not designed.



WTC7 was hit by thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling from the north tower.

Hey...remember when Barry Jennings and Michael Hess said that when they got to the OEM on the 23rd floor of WTC7 the place was unexpectedly empty but that there were half-eaten sandwiches and steaming coffee on the desks ?

Jeez....it was almost as if someone had said that a plane was about to hit the building or something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Barry Jennings

[RedIbis]

You and your fellow tin-foilers.

So I think that WTC 7 was demo'd because "they" could not find a power outlet?

The fact that you have to make cheap unfunny "jokes" is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.

It remains the single most devastating blow to the official fantasy.

[Thunder]

Hey...remember when Barry Jennings and Michael Hess said that when they got to the OEM on the 23rd floor of WTC7 the place was unexpectedly empty but that there were half-eaten sandwiches and steaming coffee on the desks ?

The New York Department of Sanitation had offices at OEM.

The New York Department of Parks & Recreation had offices at OEM.

are you suggesting that DSNY and DPR are "in on it" or have knowledge about 9-11 that must be investigated?

:p:p:p:p

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So I think that WTC 7 was demo'd because "they" could not find a power outlet?

You and yours routinely claim that WTC7 was destroyed because of sensitive information in CIA, SEC and other government offices inside the building.

This means that at some point, your mythical ninjews decided that blowing up a half billion dollar skyscraper was preferable to sending in a dozen agents and a couple of ten thousand dollar Whitaker Brothers "Datastroyer" (http://www.whitakerbrothers.com/federal/prod_com_shred1.asp?order_by=High+Security) paper shredders.

Blowing up a building because they couldn't find a plug-in the shredder is an accurate, if facetious, description of your cockadoodle theories.

The fact that you have to make cheap unfunny "jokes" is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.

It remains the single most devastating blow to the official fantasy.

I feed upon your desperate, petulant whining.

[Sam.I.Am]

The fact that you have to make cheap unfunny "jokes" is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.

Truthers own words make it easy to make themselves the butt of jokes. When one of the "Possible" motives include destroying documents as a viable reason to destroy an entire building is held by some of the group and not openly and actively disdained by the rest of the group, jokes are sure to be at least one of the expected outcomes.

[TexasJack]

The fact that you have to make cheap unfunny "jokes" is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.

Why don't you tell us a plausible reason why it would be demo'd? Or is that too uncomfortable for you?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hey...remember when Barry Jennings and Michael Hess said that when they got to the OEM on the 23rd floor of WTC7 the place was unexpectedly empty but that there were half-eaten sandwiches and steaming coffee on the desks ?

Jeez....it was almost as if someone had said that a plane was about to hit the building or something much bigger building just across the street was damaged, on fire and in danger of collapse.

Corrected free of charge.

[sheeplesnshills]

But I am curious, [B]is there any possible scenario where building seven would have had to be destroyed as part of a conspiracy?

Its where the records of the JFK case and moon "landings were kept along with the real holocaust, vaccinations and area 51 papers (including the UFO and the captured aliens (yes they were still alive in 2001)

The assorted CTers were getting too close to the truth so they used the giant DEW space weapon to project holograph planes and dustify the buildings cunning making it look like actual impact damage and fire that caused it.

[sheeplesnshills]

The fact that you have to make cheap unfunny "jokes" is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.


They were not as funny as every truther fantasy I've heard.......I'm a professional Mech Eng and am not the least bit uncomfortable about the collapse of WTC7

[fourtoe]

So I think that WTC 7 was demo'd because "they" could not find a power outlet?

The fact that you have to make cheap unfunny "jokes" is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.

It remains the single most devastating blow to the official fantasy.

Jack already asked before me but come on Red, don't start playing Truther 20 Questions and tell what you think the motive was behind blowing up WTC7.


This means that at some point, your mythical ninjews decided that blowing up a half billion dollar skyscraper was preferable to sending in a dozen agents and a couple of ten thousand dollar Whitaker Brothers "Datastroyer" (http://www.whitakerbrothers.com/federal/prod_com_shred1.asp?order_by=High+Security) paper shredders.


http://www.whitakerbrothers.com/img_products/1_145_large.gif
8,575$ for that?! And it only shreds "up to 16 pages"?! That is ridiculous! If you ask me, the ninJews went with the right decision.

I remember in Gravy's debate with Fetzer on Hardfire Fetzer was asked if he knew of any investigation that was stifled due to WTC7 being blown up and either Fetzer was too busy talking over Gravy or he just dodged the question.

Attempting to end/hinder investigations that the CIA and the other agencies were doing is a stretch for justifying the the CD of the building but I think it is probably the best one Truthers' are going with AFAIK. Is there any merit to this?

I also recall the 'white elephants' argument, does that one also include WTC7?

[jhunter1163]

Industrial paper shredder: $10,000 (includes tax and shipping)
WTC7: $700 million to rebuild

Yep, sounds like a government operation to me. :rolleyes:

[Fizzard]

Possibility #1: WTC7 harbored incriminating evidence -- and as everyone knows, the simplest and stealthiest way to dispose of evidence in a building is to execute a "classic controlled demolition" in broad daylight while the whole world is watching.

Possibility #2: The government thought that destroying WTC1+2, wreaking havoc on the Pentagon and slaughtering 3000 people wasn't quite enough "shock+awe" for one day and that demolishing a relatively unknown, fully evacuated building in a suspicious way was well worth the risk.

Possibility #3: The gov't goons thought lining Silverstein's pockets with insurance money was more important than protecting themselves against suspicion, so they graciously let Larry "pull" the building as long as he agreed not to do anything stupid such as spilling the beans on national TV.

Seems reasonable.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

http://www.whitakerbrothers.com/img_products/1_145_large.gif
8,575$ for that?! And it only shreds "up to 16 pages"?! That is ridiculous! If you ask me, the ninJews went with the right decision.

Poke around that site more. They have huge ones that you can mount on a truck that would turn a hundred phone books back into pulp in 60 seconds.

[JimBenArm]

Hey, everyone knows there's a lack of parking space in Manhattan. So the property was worth more as empty space for parking than as income-generating office space.
Plus the C-4 coated rebar and invisithermite, along with the lucite destructo-cables (hey, can't have them visible, would blow the whole operation) made it easy to bring it all down once the holographic projectors were in place.
The paper destruction was just a side benefit. They were going to do it with a shredder, but a paper clip got stuck in it and they didn't have replacement funds.

[George152]

Possibility #1: WTC7 harbored incriminating evidence -- and as everyone knows, the simplest and stealthiest way to dispose of evidence in a building is to execute a "classic controlled demolition" in broad daylight while the whole world is watching.

Possibility #2: The government thought that destroying WTC1+2, wreaking havoc on the Pentagon and slaughtering 3000 people wasn't quite enough "shock+awe" for one day and that demolishing a relatively unknown, fully evacuated building in a suspicious way was well worth the risk.

Possibility #3: The gov't goons thought lining Silverstein's pockets with insurance money was more important than protecting themselves against suspicion, so they graciously let Larry "pull" the building as long as he agreed not to do anything stupid such as spilling the beans on national TV.

Seems reasonable.

Of course all that paper floating round after 911 wouldn't have come from WTC7 and so reveal the dastardly plot.....

[T.A.M.]

No no...they shredded the documents first, then beat up the hard drives with sledge hammers, then , just for good measure, decided to bring the building down.

TAM:)

[Justin39640]

Hey...remember when Barry Jennings and Michael Hess said that when they got to the OEM on the 23rd floor of WTC7 the place was unexpectedly empty but that there were half-eaten sandwiches and steaming coffee on the desks ?

Jeez....it was almost as if someone had said that a plane was about to hit the building or something.



That's clear evidence that "the **** has hit the fan".

[njslim]

But I am curious, is there any possible scenario where building seven would have had to be destroyed as part of a conspiracy? The main buildings were already hit and already destroyed. Surely the damage had already been done and the point had been made, so what difference would the destruction of building seven make?

I can't think of any reason but I'm sure there are people who have. So I am curious what plausible reasons could there be. Feel free to make wild speculations to try to craft any scenario where the deliberate destruction of building seven fits into any sort of conspiracy that you can think up. I'm just trying to sort through what types of conspiracy theories are still plausible if building seven was destroyed as part of the conspiracy.


Problem with trying to destroy WTC 7 was Verizon Telephone Building at 140
West St - this building supported voice/data circuits for Southern Manhattan
including financial firms and the stock exchange on Wall ST. Verizon was so close - just across narrow alleyway that when WTC 7 collapsed debris from it heavily damaged Verizon - it was only the heavy concrete construction that prevented it from was collapse. Now if want to destroy WTC 7 you very
likely damage//destroy Verizon and with it the communication backbone for
Manhattan.

The collapse of WTC 7 damaged 30 West Broadway (Fiterman Hall) across
Barclay St so badly that it is being dismantled.

Explosive demolition is banned in Manhattan for just this reason - buildings are
too close and chance of collateral damage is high.

[dafydd]

So I think that WTC 7 was demo'd because "they" could not find a power outlet?

The fact that you have to make cheap unfunny "jokes" is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.

It remains the single most devastating blow to the official fantasy.

Your whole movement is a cheap joke.Not so much a movement,more like squirming.

[twinstead]

Not so much a movement,more like squirming.

Oh, it's a "movement" all right...

[MRC_Hans]

Hey...remember when Barry Jennings and Michael Hess said that when they got to the OEM on the 23rd floor of WTC7 the place was unexpectedly empty but that there were half-eaten sandwiches and steaming coffee on the desks ?

This is funny! In which possible scenario would anybody calmly finish their sandwiches and coffee after two buildings across the street have been hit by airliners and are on fire? ... I bet there was about a ton of unfinished sandwiches and coffee in lower Manhattan on that day.

Hans

[Captain_Swoop]

Oh, it's a "movement" all right...

Problem is it won't flush.

[bill smith]

This is funny! In which possible scenario would anybody calmly finish their sandwiches and coffee after two buildings across the street have been hit by airliners and are on fire? ... I bet there was about a ton of unfinished sandwiches and coffee in lower Manhattan on that day.

Hans

But why did you delete the Barry Jennings video from my quoted text? ( Readers can find it in my last post above)

[Sabrina]

The idea that WTC7 was demolished to destroy sensitive documents is by it's very definition utterly and completely INSANE.

If we're talking about government paperwork, there are very specific rules and regulations regarding the destruction of sensitive documents; trust me, demolishing a building is not among the accepted methods of destruction. Anyone who still spouts this ludicrous claim is off their rocker, batcrap crazy. End of story.

[sheeplesnshills]

made it easy to bring it all down once the holographic projectors were in place.

How do we know that WTC ever actually existed?????? Sure there are lots of pictures, thousands of eye witnesses and videos of it collapsing.

They are obviously all faked! The building was a hologram projected from the Space DEW weapon. The weapon was needing servicing and they needed a good excuse why the building disappeared! So they dustified the WTC Towers, flew a cruise missile on a "north of Citgo" flightpath over the pentagon, dustified a bit of that too and played a CD hologram of WTC7 falling down!

Its all clear now:D Sorry no "gotcha questions" will be permitted..........

[JimBenArm]

The idea that WTC7 was demolished to destroy sensitive documents is by it's very definition utterly and completely INSANE.

If we're talking about government paperwork, there are very specific rules and regulations regarding the destruction of sensitive documents; trust me, demolishing a building is not among the accepted methods of destruction. Anyone who still spouts this ludicrous claim is off their rocker, batcrap crazy. End of story.

Who ordered you to say that? Hmmm?

[MRC_Hans]

But why did you delete the Barry Jennings video from my quoted text? ( Readers can find it in my last post above)Because it was not relevant to my reply.

Hans

[sheeplesnshills]

But why did you delete the Barry Jennings video from my quoted text? ( Readers can find it in my last post above)

Probably because it was full of "movement" like the last one you linked to.
Do you even watch these before you post? Do you like appearing to be a fool?

[ElMondoHummus]

The idea that WTC7 was demolished to destroy sensitive documents is by it's very definition utterly and completely INSANE.

If we're talking about government paperwork, there are very specific rules and regulations regarding the destruction of sensitive documents; trust me, demolishing a building is not among the accepted methods of destruction. Anyone who still spouts this ludicrous claim is off their rocker, batcrap crazy. End of story.

Well, I don't think the argument is that the "conspirators" were trying to follow established standards in disposing of the supposedly sensitive documents :D.

But yes, I do agree that the argument demonstrates the mental pathology of the advocate. "Off their rocker" is a kind way of putting it; I'd say they're a good 3 or 4 timezones away from their rocker. They didn't just fall off of it,they took a running leap and did a reverse triple gainer off of it! Why in God's name would someone think "I need to dispose of these documents to keep them from becoming public knowledge", then blast them all over Manhattan for anyone, especially the rescue workers, to see and have easy access to. Screw paper shredders; it's as if truthers have never heard of a match or cigarette lighter before.

I mean, there's ludicrous, and then there's absolutely, blightingly ignorant. One of these days, truthers will rise to one of those levels :rolleyes:.

[MRC_Hans]

The idea that WTC7 was demolished to destroy sensitive documents is by it's very definition utterly and completely INSANE.

If we're talking about government paperwork, there are very specific rules and regulations regarding the destruction of sensitive documents; trust me, demolishing a building is not among the accepted methods of destruction. Anyone who still spouts this ludicrous claim is off their rocker, batcrap crazy. End of story.Ahh, so they had to demolish the building to get around the red tape! :p

And this connects to the other things happening on that day by ....

Mmm, hang on a minute ....:dio:

.... Nevermind.

Hans

[JimBenArm]

Well, I don't think the argument is that the "conspirators" were trying to follow established standards in disposing of the supposedly sensitive documents :D.

But yes, I do agree that the argument demonstrates the mental pathology of the advocate. "Off their rocker" is a kind way of putting it; I'd say they're a good 3 or 4 timezones away from their rocker. They didn't just fall off of it,they took a running leap and did a reverse triple gainer off of it! Why in God's name would someone think "I need to dispose of these documents to keep them from becoming public knowledge", then blast them all over Manhattan for anyone, especially the rescue workers, to see and have easy access to. Screw paper shredders; it's as if truthers have never heard of a match or cigarette lighter before.

I mean, there's ludicrous, and then there's absolutely, blightingly ignorant. One of these days, truthers will rise to one of those levels :rolleyes:.

And I'll be there to shake their hand!
Or shake something.

[MRC_Hans]

And I'll be there to shake their hand!
Or shake something.Paw?

Hans

[aggle-rithm]

Explosive demolition is banned in Manhattan for just this reason - buildings are
too close and chance of collateral damage is high.

A while back I offered the truthers a plausible motive for Bldg. 7. I told them they could say that Silverstein knew that it would have to be demolished, and legal demolition of the property could take up to a year. So, he decided to do it illegally and make it look like an accident.

I guess this wasn't diabolical enough, because the truthers didn't bite.

[ElMondoHummus]

And I'll be there to shake their hand!
Or shake something.

Jim! I thought there was a court order preventing you from shaking that in public!

:p

[RedIbis]

Your whole movement is a cheap joke.Not so much a movement,more like squirming.

My only movement is what I do in the morning before I go to work, and usually after I've had a cup of coffee.

[MRC_Hans]

My only movement is what I do in the morning before I go to work, and usually after I've had a cup of coffee.That figures. :p:rolleyes:

... But, could you be persuaded to dispose of it somewhere else?

Hans

[aggle-rithm]

That figures. :p:rolleyes:

... But, could you be persuaded to dispose of it somewhere else?

Hans

Ouch!

Burn.

[bill smith]

Probably because it was full of "movement" like the last one you linked to.
Do you even watch these before you post? Do you like appearing to be a fool?

Are you sure that yu are not projecting a little there Sheeples ? I mean you are a professional Mechanical Engineer and yet you say that these pictures attached represent a natural fire-driven collapse of a massive steel framed structure. No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire. In fact the only way one has been cleanly brought down like in the picture is by explosive controlled demolition.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 seconds later

[JimBenArm]

Are you sure that yu are not projecting a little there Sheeples ? I mean you are a professional Mechanical Engineer and yet you say that these pictures attached represent a natural fire-driven collapse of a massive steel framed structure. No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire. In fact the only way one has been cleanly brought down like in the picture is by explosive controlled demolition.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 seconds later

Who ordered you to say that? Hmmm?

[JimBenArm]

Jim! I thought there was a court order preventing you from shaking that in public!

:p

Only within 500 yards of you.

[excaza]

No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire.
Astounding logic. :rolleyes:

Because it didn't happen before, it never can? How would anything happen in the first place then? If fire can't bring down a building, what's the point of including fireproofing into the building code?

In fact the only way one has been cleanly brought down like in the picture is by explosive controlled demolition
Repeating the same unsupported nonsense over and over will never make it true.

[ElMondoHummus]

Who ordered you to say that? Hmmm?

He links WebFairy. OMG...

Only within 500 yards of you.

I'm having it increased to a mile. Just so you know. :p

[phunk]

Are you sure that yu are not projecting a little there Sheeples ? I mean you are a professional Mechanical Engineer and yet you say that these pictures attached represent a natural fire-driven collapse of a massive steel framed structure. No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire. In fact the only way one has been cleanly brought down like in the picture is by explosive controlled demolition.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 seconds later

Why do you keep posting pictures from days later as "seconds later"?

[Scott Jurgenson]

Because it didn't happen before, it never can? How would anything happen in the first place then? If fire can't bring down a building, what's the point of including fireproofing into the building code?


EXCELLENT. I wish people could understand this. It was also the first time in history that part of it's face was gouged out by steal beams from a sky scraper that fell on top if it. But that's not the point. Your point is well put. Even life is a first, There's a 14 year old sailing around the world, she'll be the first girl to sail solo at that age ever, but by CT logic, she can't do it, ever, because it's not possible if it didn't happen before.

[Alareth]

No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire.

If we use that line of logic you may as well just go away and stop posting here because no one has ever taken you seriously or not thought you are a buffoon before, therefore it will never happen.

[RedIbis]

EXCELLENT. I wish people could understand this. It was also the first time in history that part of it's face was gouged out by steal beams from a sky scraper that fell on top if it. But that's not the point. Your point is well put. Even life is a first, There's a 14 year old sailing around the world, she'll be the first girl to sail solo at that age ever, but by CT logic, she can't do it, ever, because it's not possible if it didn't happen before.

I don't see anyone saying that because something has not happened it can't happen. The point is and will always be that if you make an extraordinary claim, you better have extraordinary evidence.

Neither NIST nor any of these esteemed so called "debunkers" have such evidence to explain the sudden and complete collapse of WTC 7.

[JimBenArm]

The evidence is there. You're just not able to understand it, so you dismiss it.

Not our fault.

[Disbelief]

I don't see anyone saying that because something has not happened it can't happen. The point is and will always be that if you make an extraordinary claim, you better have extraordinary evidence.

Neither NIST nor any of these esteemed so called "debunkers" have such evidence to explain the sudden and complete collapse of WTC 7.

Yet you and your TM buddies have produced ZERO evidence of any type of CD, while there is a published report about what happened at WTC7.

What kind of collapse would you envision from fire, Red? Since you are amazed by the suddenness, does that mean you are expecting a gradual sagging? Why?

[JLord]

Thanks for all the replies, but it seems as though there is no speculation coming from the truther camp. I may be wrong because I am not familiar with everyone here but I thought from other threads that there were some truth people who post here regularly.

The idea that the building would be destroyed in order to destroy documents or evidence of the conspiracy obviously makes no sense. If evidence had to be destroyed, the conspirators would not risk doing so in a building demolition. That just isn't an effective way of doing it because you don't maintain control over the things you are trying to destroy, plus it would rely on the conspirators hoping that enough debris would happen to fall on that particular building and start fires and cause enough damage to make a collapse seem plausible.

I find it hard to believe that anyone in the truth movement actually thinks this is possible. It sounds to me more like skeptics have jumped all over something to make the truther look bad.

The insurance angle also makes no sense to me. Surely nobody would suggest that the conspiracy was solely an insurance fraud scheme. And if it was something bigger then it would make no sense to tack on insurance fraud just for the heck of it. As if some major political conspiracy would potentially expose itself because they wanted to do a little insurance scam on the side? It doesn't seem realistic at all.

I would still like to see what the truth movement has to say about this because I keep hearing that building seven is the key or the smoking gun or what have you. But it seems to me like the conspiracy theories I have heard are incompatible with a deliberate demolition of building seven.

(also, I'm not really interested in a debate here over whether it was a controlled demolition or not. That is an interesting debate but I know for a fact there are other threads devoted to that topic. So please try to keep comments here constrained to possible conspiracy theories that fit up with a controlled demolition of WTC7)

[bill smith]

Thanks for all the replies, but it seems as though there is no speculation coming from the truther camp. I may be wrong because I am not familiar with everyone here but I thought from other threads that there were some truth people who post here regularly.

The idea that the building would be destroyed in order to destroy documents or evidence of the conspiracy obviously makes no sense. If evidence had to be destroyed, the conspirators would not risk doing so in a building demolition. That just isn't an effective way of doing it because you don't maintain control over the things you are trying to destroy, plus it would rely on the conspirators hoping that enough debris would happen to fall on that particular building and start fires and cause enough damage to make a collapse seem plausible.

I find it hard to believe that anyone in the truth movement actually thinks this is possible. It sounds to me more like skeptics have jumped all over something to make the truther look bad.

The insurance angle also makes no sense to me. Surely nobody would suggest that the conspiracy was solely an insurance fraud scheme. And if it was something bigger then it would make no sense to tack on insurance fraud just for the heck of it. As if some major political conspiracy would potentially expose itself because they wanted to do a little insurance scam on the side? It doesn't seem realistic at all.

I would still like to see what the truth movement has to say about this because I keep hearing that building seven is the key or the smoking gun or what have you. But it seems to me like the conspiracy theories I have heard are incompatible with a deliberate demolition of building seven.

(also, I'm not really interested in a debate here over whether it was a controlled demolition or not. That is an interesting debate but I know for a fact there are other threads devoted to that topic. So please try to keep comments here constrained to possible conspiracy theories that fit up with a controlled demolition of WTC7)

You are quite right that all those theories you mention are simply red herrings.

[Disbelief]

You are quite right that all those theories aryou mention are simply red herrings.

Then why did they do it Bill?

[bill smith]

Who ordered you to say that? Hmmm?

Who do you think ordered me ?

[JimBenArm]

Who do you think ordered me ?

Your CIA handlers?

[bill smith]

Then why did they do it Bill?

Even debunkers should be able to come up with seeveral excellent reasons for why they had to bring down WTC7.

[Disbelief]

Even debunkers should be able to come up with seeveral excellent reasons for why they had to bring down WTC7.

It's your preposterous theory that they CDd the building, so you should have some explanation. Why would any of us do your work for you?

[JLord]

You are quite right that all those theories aryou mention are simply red herrings.

So then what theories are there that make sense? This isn't some kind of trap where I'm going to ask for evidence that you don't have or something. I am just wondering if there is any concievable way that the demolition of WTC makes sense within the scope a larger conspiracy theory.

Even debunkers should be able to come up with seeveral excellent reasons for why they had to bring down WTC7.

But you have dismissed those reasons provided by the debunkers as red herrings. So...

[Bell]

No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire.

So unless something has happened before, it can not happen at all. Gotcha!

[RedIbis]

Yet you and your TM buddies have produced ZERO evidence of any type of CD, while there is a published report about what happened at WTC7.

What kind of collapse would you envision from fire, Red? Since you are amazed by the suddenness, does that mean you are expecting a gradual sagging? Why?

Thank you for providing a text book example of the strawman fallacy since I didn't mention CD.

[sheeplesnshills]

Are you sure that yu are not projecting a little there Sheeples ? I mean you are a professional Mechanical Engineer and yet you say that these pictures attached represent a natural fire-driven collapse of a massive steel framed structure. No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire. In fact the only way one has been cleanly brought down like in the picture is by explosive controlled demolition.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 seconds later


I guess you missed the WTC and WTC collapses then......in fact ALL steel frame buildings that have suffered heavy damage followed by uncontrolled fires have collapsed..........3 out of 3.
Given all prior examples of uncontrolled fire in heavily damaged steel frame buildings, it would have been weird if the WTC7 has done any other than collapse!

So it looked like a CD? so what?......what would you have expected it to look like??? Please list all assumptions made and show working.

[excaza]

Thank you for providing a text book example of the strawman fallacy since I didn't mention CD.

Well, what was it then? Lasers? Holograms? Missiles?

[Bell]

Thank you for providing a text book example of the strawman fallacy since I didn't mention CD.

Obvious :rolleyes:

[bill smith]

So then what theories are there that make sense? This isn't some kind of trap where I'm going to ask for evidence that you don't have or something. I am just wondering if there is any concievable way that the demolition of WTC makes sense within the scope a larger conspiracy theory.



But you have dismissed those reasons provided by the debunkers as red herrings. So...

that's true...so ?

Sigh.....I guess I'll have to guide you a little..


Remember the Barry Jennings video ? Remember Barry was talking about how the inside of WTC7 had explosions going on all over it ? This was to pre-weaken the building in anticipation of the plane crashing into it and the ensuing demolition some time later. Just like the Twin Towers really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Barry Jennings

So obviously the perps couldn't permit people see the inside of the building after the plane failed to arrive. It had to go.

[sheeplesnshills]

Thank you for providing a text book example of the strawman fallacy since I didn't mention CD.

Liar, you said just that in a post to me.

No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire. In fact the only way one has been cleanly brought down like in the picture is by explosive controlled demolition.

[RedIbis]

Given all prior examples of uncontrolled fire in heavily damaged steel frame buildings, it would have been weird if the WTC7 has done any other than collapse!



What prior examples exist of the complete collapse of a steel framed high rise due primarily to fire?

[Bell]

What prior examples exist of the complete collapse of a steel framed high rise due primarily to fire?

How is that important?

[bill smith]

I guess you missed the WTC and WTC collapses then......in fact ALL steel frame buildings that have suffered heavy damage followed by uncontrolled fires have collapsed..........3 out of 3.
Given all prior examples of uncontrolled fire in heavily damaged steel frame buildings, it would have been weird if the WTC7 has done any other than collapse!

So it looked like a CD? so what?......what would you have expected it to look like??? Please list all assumptions made and show working.

Are you sure that your colleagues will be happy with you saying

'WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition '' Sheeplenshills

Statement made after seeing the ' before and after ' pictures.

You won't mind if I add that to my files will you ?

[sheeplesnshills]

Remember the Barry Jennings video ? Remember Barry was talking about how the inside of WTC7 had explosions going on all over it ? This was to pre-weaken the building in anticipation of the plane crashing into it and the ensuing demolition some time later. Just like the Twin Towers really.

You've never been close to big fire have you? I have and "explosions" are regular occurrences in them.All sorts of material and objects "explode" if they get hot enough and the shearing of bolted joints as they fail would also sound like an "explosion" to a layman.

[RedIbis]

Liar, you said just that in a post to me.

Liar, liar pants on fire, no I didn't.

[RedIbis]

How is that important?

Ask Sheeple, he seems to think such examples exist.

[excaza]

What prior examples exist of the complete collapse of a steel framed high rise due primarily to fire?

If it's never happened before, it can't happen? Is that what you're going for?

[bill smith]

You've never been close to big fire have you? I have and "explosions" are regular occurrences in them.All sorts of material and objects "explode" if they get hot enough and the shearing of bolted joints as they fail would also sound like an "explosion" to a layman.

It's really lucky that we have a mechanical engineer like you around to make sure we know the Truth. lol

[RedIbis]

If it's never happened before, it can't happen? Is that what you're going for?

See post #63. Read. Learn.

[sheeplesnshills]

Are you sure that your collwagues will be happy with you saying

'WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition '' Sheeplenshills

Statement made after seeing the before and after pictures.

You won't mind if I add that to my files will you ?


Pity I didn't actually sat that :)

I said "so it looked like a CD, so what?" I was simply asking you to take the next step of explaining why you thinking it looking like a CD was important.
You do know that just because something looks like something else to a layman, it does not mean they are the same thing? No perhaps not.

But feel free to distort what I said.....strange thing to do if one seeks the "truth" but go for it.:rolleyes:

[sheeplesnshills]

It's really lucky that we have a mechanical engineer like you around to make sure we know the Truth. lol

You are. Glad to see you appreciate the fact.:D

[excaza]

See post #63. Read. Learn.

You mean like the extraordinary claim about how WT7 was a CD but there's no evidence for it?

And since when was the WT7 collapse sudden?

[sheeplesnshills]

What prior examples exist of the complete collapse of a steel framed high rise due primarily to fire?

The WTC 1 and 2....without the fire they would have remained up and possibly even repairable.

[Captain_Swoop]

that's true...so ?

Sigh.....I guess I'll have to guide you a little..


Remember the Barry Jennings video ? Remember Barry was talking about how the inside of WTC7 had explosions going on all over it ? This was to pre-weaken the building in anticipation of the plane crashing into it and the ensuing demolition some time later. Just like the Twin Towers really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Barry Jennings

So obviously the perps couldn't permit people see the inside of the building after the plane failed to arrive. It had to go.

That doesn't tell us why you think it was demolished.

[RedIbis]

The WTC 1 and 2....without the fire they would have remained up and possibly even repairable.

First, you might want to take back your liar comment, unless you're too immature to do so.

Secondly, the collapses of the towers were not primarily due to fire. It was the combination of fire and impact damage. Goodness, don't you even know the basics of this fairy tale?

Even NIST admitted that WTC7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily due to fire.

[bill smith]

Pity I didn't actually sat that :)

I said "so it looked like a CD, so what?" I was simply asking you to take the next step of explaining why you thinking it looking like a CD was important.
You do know that just because something looks like something else to a layman, it does not mean they are the same thing? No perhaps not.

But feel free to distort what I said.....strange thing to do if one seeks the "truth" but go for it.:rolleyes:

Well when if I reproduce it I will link to the rest of your post and people can see that you actually did not indicate that WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition. How's that ? I may also reprodruce this denial of yours.

[Scott Jurgenson]

I am new here (obviously) so those in favor of the CD please answer this (I'm sure it's been talked about 100 times like every other topic in this sub-forum)...

Where were the blast caps? I don't recall seeing any. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x50gvip-PPo&feature=related) I really like what he says around 8:50. It's like "You're showing me evidence that debunks my claims...wait there's SUPER THERMITE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT!!!!"

EDIT: I also love later on when they show how thermite can't burn through the steel beam, and how complicated it actually is to keep the thermite in place. Then "Dr." Jones goes it proves nothing because they use thermate or super thermite that can be painted on. Unreal the way their minds work.

[sheeplesnshills]

So obviously the perps couldn't permit people see the inside of the building after the plane failed to arrive. It had to go.[/QUOTE]


So why was the plane flying towards Washington and not NYC? and who had ever heard of the WT7 before 911? Off all the plausible terrorists targets in NYC or Wasjington, what would have been the rationale for attacking a relative nonentity?

Terrorists are supposedly attacking the WTC towers as they had before, a military target (the Pentagon) so with the 4th and last plane they are going to hit the WTC7????? Yep thats makes a convincing storyline :)

[sheeplesnshills]

Well when if I reproduce it I will link to the rest of your post and people can see that you actually did not indicate that WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition. How's that ? I may also reprodruce this denial of yours.

Feel free. Distort away.:)

[excaza]

Secondly, the collapses of the towers were not primarily due to fire. It was the combination of fire and impact damage. Goodness, don't you even know the basics of this fairy tale?
Dude, that's exactly what he said in the post you quoted.
The WTC 1 and 2....without the fire they would have remained up and possibly even repairable.
:rolleyes:
Even NIST admitted that WTC7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily due to fire.
And?

[bill smith]

So why was the plane flying towards Washington and not NYC? and who had ever heard of the WT7 before 911? Off all the plausible terrorists targets in NYC or Wasjington, what would have been the rationale for attacking a relative nonentity?

Terrorists are supposedly attacking the WTC towers as they had before, a military target (the Pentagon) so with the 4th and last plane they are going to hit the WTC7????? Yep thats makes a convincing storyline :)[/QUOTE]

What flight number are you referring to ?

[excaza]

93, which was heading for Washington DC, not NYC

[TexasJack]

I don't see anyone saying that because something has not happened it can't happen. The point is and will always be that if you make an extraordinary claim, you better have extraordinary evidence.

Neither NIST nor any of these esteemed so called "debunkers" have such evidence to explain the sudden and complete collapse of WTC 7.

Since you dismiss the evidence, explain to us a more probable hypothesis. Please include a plausable motive, after all, it's your "smoking gun."

[JimBenArm]

93

Not "OU812"?

[sheeplesnshills]

First, you might want to take back your liar comment, unless you're too immature to do so.

I retract my liar comment. I got my truthers mixed up.

Secondly, the collapses of the towers were not primarily due to fire. It was the combination of fire and impact damage. Goodness, don't you even know the basics of this fairy tale?

Sure it was a combination. but without the fire they would not have fallen, and if there is a big uncontrolled fire in any steel framed tower I am in, I for one am not going to bet that fire alone would not bring it down, The Windsor tower fire showed that a steel frame is no guarantee of survival even without impact damage.

Even NIST admitted that WTC7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily due to fire.

And Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon..........so?

[excaza]

Not "OU812"?

I don't think Van Halen had any business in DC that day, though I could be wrong.

[bill smith]

93, which was heading for Washington DC, not NYC

Now it's funny thing that you should say that...I have a meeting coming up but I will elaborate later.

[excaza]

I am just quaking in anticipation.

[sheeplesnshills]

93, which was heading for Washington DC, not NYC

Yeah buts thats a reasonable error for the NWO to make :D

Probably just brought up the wrong address on his Tom Tom GPS...........

[sheeplesnshills]

Now it's funny thing that you should say that...I have a meeting coming up but I will elaborate later.


I'm sure it will be hilarious!

[excaza]

Yeah buts thats a reasonable error for the NWO to make :D

Probably just brought up the wrong address on his Tom Tom GPS...........

I'm guessing bill has some smoking gun about how it was actually headed for NYC and not DC, despite the flight path.

[Horatius]

The idea that the building would be destroyed in order to destroy documents or evidence of the conspiracy obviously makes no sense. If evidence had to be destroyed, the conspirators would not risk doing so in a building demolition. That just isn't an effective way of doing it because you don't maintain control over the things you are trying to destroy, plus it would rely on the conspirators hoping that enough debris would happen to fall on that particular building and start fires and cause enough damage to make a collapse seem plausible.



If you're expecting things from the truthers to make sense, you'll be disappointed. You'll also be disappointed if you expect much of anything in the way of a positive statement about what they do actually believe.

However, we do get statements like these:


Documents and Command Center Destroyed (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html)

At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy


You forgot about all the incriminating documentation which was also stored in WTC7... The most notorious and famous of which was the Enron scandal investigation. (http://letsrollforums.com/why-building-7-destroyed-t15393.html)

Intelligence agencies were indeed stationed there. The ENRON investigation was effectively shut down because of the destruction of WTC 7. Also BCCI on the international front. Both being major players in the black ops of the spooks. If I were in charge, there is no way I would want to be that close to the carnage though. 7 was taken down to cover the trail, this is certain. (http://letsrollforums.com/why-building-7-destroyed-t15393p2.html)


It was stated that the complete files from the Oklahoma City Murrah building bombing were also all kept there.

As you can the government had many investments in this building including the CIA, DOD, the IRS, OEM, the Secret Service, and more. (http://letsrollforums.com/wtc7-tenants-their-significance-t16930.html)

This building had to be brought down. It is safe to say that this was most likely the 9/11 operations field office, and once the operation was complete, the building had to go. It was a classic coverup, where the criminals covered their tracks.


The motive is pretty clear to me. (http://www.disinfo.com/2010/07/it-fell-in-silence-the-collapse-of-world-trade-center-7/) They managed to destroy all the files and traces of the insider tradings that went on that day (AA shares droping etc.) since the SEC was conveniently located there. Also they destroyed tons of documents on the ENRON and Worldcom cases that were stored there... + one more reason for Mr. Silverstein was the insurance of course. He even admitted that he called the insurance to check if bringing the building down with controlled demolitions to prevent further loss would invalidate his insurance... now you tell me how he could have wired a building to blow up in less than a day? This was planed long before!


[C]orporate media execs continue to withhold important stories (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_other.htm) about presidential foreknowledge of attacks, military stand-down, and evidence of controlled demolition of third WTC Building 7, containing critical Securities and Exchange Commission corporate fraud investigation documents.


Possible motives for demolishing the WTC 7, evidence of a cover-up, and who could have done it: (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/10/gz-rescuer-wtc-7-about-to-blow-up.html)

...

3) A secret CIA office was in the WTC 7 that engaged in counterterrorist and counterintelligence operations.


4) The Securities and Exchange Commission in the WTC 7 lost more critical documents than any other financial institution at the WTC, including hundreds of cases of files in which one executive whose company was under investigation mentioned that they got a “lucky break” when their case files were destroyed in the Seven’s collapse.


5) Other offices in the WTC 7 were occupied by the Department of Defense, IRS, Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt, and the U.S. Secret Service.


6) WTC 7 owner Larry Silverstein, who leased the rest of the WTC six weeks before 9/11 for $3.2 billion and sued his insurers of his complex for $7.2 billion and who’s life was spared at the WTC on 9/11 because he had a doctor’s appointment, received $861 million for the Seven’s collapse in which debt owed on it was only $383 million.


7) Some alleged 9/11 hijackers and their associated had accounts at a foreign branch of Standard Chartered Bank who occupied a large part of the WTC 7.


8) Demolition experts Controlled Demolition, Inc., who holds the world record for the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, was hired to help “clean up” at Ground Zero and have said the word “pull” in demolition terms mean pull it down.




And that's just from a brief Google search for "wtc 7 destroy documents". Our resident Truth weasels will insist that the "paper shredder" theory of WTC 7 is just a "red herring" we "debunkers" use to make them look stupid. What they'll never acknowledge is, it was their fellow truthers* who came up with, and continue to support, this notion.





*Cue Red Ibis denying he's associated with other truthers.


I find it hard to believe that anyone in the truth movement actually thinks this is possible. It sounds to me more like skeptics have jumped all over something to make the truther look bad.

The insurance angle also makes no sense to me. Surely nobody would suggest that the conspiracy was solely an insurance fraud scheme. And if it was something bigger then it would make no sense to tack on insurance fraud just for the heck of it. As if some major political conspiracy would potentially expose itself because they wanted to do a little insurance scam on the side? It doesn't seem realistic at all.

I would still like to see what the truth movement has to say about this because I keep hearing that building seven is the key or the smoking gun or what have you. But it seems to me like the conspiracy theories I have heard are incompatible with a deliberate demolition of building seven.




See above. That's what they have to say about it. That it literally makes no sense to you is not the fault of the debunkers.

[JLord]

If you're expecting things from the truthers to make sense, you'll be disappointed. You'll also be disappointed if you expect much of anything in the way of a positive statement about what they do actually believe.

However, we do get statements like these:



Thanks for the post. That was informative for me. Although it seems like most of these theories are basically variations on the idea that the building was demolished in order to destroy documents and records. And I don't really see the sense in this. An out of control fire alone surely would have destroyed all the records without having to rig the whole building for demolition. Also, if the owner of the towers was involved in the conspiracy and for some reason he needed to demolish the building in order to destroy documents, then just store the documents you want destroyed in the building you aregoing to demolish, don't choose extra buildings to demolish based on where the documents are. You wouldn't go "where are those documents we want destroyed... oh right, then I guess we'll have demolish those buildings as well."

[Disbelief]

Thank you for providing a text book example of the strawman fallacy since I didn't mention CD.

So, it wasn't from fire and it wasn't a CD, so what is your take? Do you have a position, or will you continue your no-claim?

Nice attempted dodge at the other questions. Typical.

[carlitos]

Don't forget the homing beacons for the sharks with lasers remote-controlled cloaked missles planes!

Seriously, even in 2001, how ridiculous is the idea that you would destroy a building to get rid of some documents? Anything of consequence would likely have been on a server, backed up somewhere.

[JLord]

So obviously the perps couldn't permit people see the inside of the building after the plane failed to arrive. It had to go.

So the building was demolished to hide the fact that it was deliberately weakened in preparation of a third plane that never came. That explains why the demolition occured, but then the question would become "why did they plan to crash a third plane into WTC7?"

So it explains the demolition within the context of a failed plane attack on the building, but doesn't explain why the building was targetted within the context of a larger conspiracy. So I would still like to hear any possible theories as to why WTC7 might have been targetted for either demolition or a plane attack.

[Scott Jurgenson]

Don't forget the homing beacons for the sharks with lasers remote-controlled cloaked missles planes!

Seriously, even in 2001, how ridiculous is the idea that you would destroy a building to get rid of some documents? Anything of consequence would likely have been on a server, backed up somewhere.

We're a health plan located out of Michigan. We're about 200 employees strong and even when we were only about 30-40 employees strong when we were just starting in early 1999/2000 we had off site back up servers for just about everything here. Even claims that we receive were sent off site in case of building fire. It's hard for me to believe that the CIA offices there or the other proposed ones didn't backup their files off site.

I laughed in the face of a troofer when he said this to me at a festival this year.

[carlitos]

It's worth noting that, since the Boeski fiasco killed Drexel Burnham Lambert and Salomon moved in, this was known as the Salomon Brothers Building. "WTC7" is largely a truther-only phenomenon, as noted in their "buildingwhat" nonsense.

[TexasJack]

So, it wasn't from fire and it wasn't a CD, so what is your take? Do you have a position, or will you continue your no-claim?

Nice attempted dodge at the other questions. Typical.

His silence indicates to me that fire is the most probable hypothesis. He may not like it, but until he can come up with a more probable one, it will remain that way.

[Sam.I.Am]

I don't think Van Halen had any business in DC that day, though I could be wrong.

I heard from a friend whose sisters boyfriends barber said that he had heard from a bartender that Eddie Van Halen was going to be in NYC doing some "Shredding"...

If you know what I mean...

[Horatius]

So the building was demolished to hide the fact that it was deliberately weakened in preparation of a third plane that never came. That explains why the demolition occured, but then the question would become "why did they plan to crash a third plane into WTC7?"

So it explains the demolition within the context of a failed plane attack on the building, but doesn't explain why the building was targetted within the context of a larger conspiracy. So I would still like to hear any possible theories as to why WTC7 might have been targetted for either demolition or a plane attack.



I'll predict that you'll never get a straight answer from bill about what he believes the motive for attacking WTC 7 was. He's said on several occasions that he sees his role here as propaganda for the truth movement, and providing clear statements that can be analysed in a rational manner are anathema to that goal.

However, we debunkers love making such statements! For quite some time now, I've viewed trying to understand the mindset of truthers as being far more interesting than actually engaging them on the specifics of their beliefs. Quite some time ago, I wrote the following:



A few people have alluded to the same idea, and it's one I wrote a post on a long time ago - that you can't be a little bit MIHOP. For your pre-wired WTC7 (or 6, or whatever one you want to discuss) demolition to look anywhere believable as a "natural" event, it has to have suffered some sort of damage. Otherwise, no one in their right mind would accept it just falling down. So we absolutely, with no ifs ands or buts, need it to be damaged.

To get that damage, we absolutely need one of the towers to fall on it. Where else can we get the damage from? So we need at least one of the towers to fall. Of course, we can't simply rely on the plane to do the job; one might miss, or just barely hit, or might even be re-taken by the passengers, or crashed prematurely like flight 93. So to be absolutely sure that the towers fall, we have to wire them too, and we have to make absolutely sure that the planes hit the towers, and hit them squarely enough that the collapses again look "natural". So now we're into full on woo territory, with some invisible hand wiring all the buildings, while also guiding the planes to their impact, all to make it possible to hide the demo of WTC7. Lose any one element of the plan, and the whole house of cards falls, and everyone watching goes, "WTF?!? Why did that just happen?", and you lose everything you worked so hard for.

You can't be a little bit MIHOP. It's all or nothing.



Your question leads me to a mirror image thought. The really interesting question isn't, "What rational reason do the truthers suggest for destroying WTC 7?" As you begin to see, there is no good answer to that, there's just various flavours of bad answers. It's much more interesting to ask, "Why do the Truthers feel WTC 7 had to have been specifically targeted on 9/11?" It's clear from all their talk of the collapse of WTC 7 being the "smoking gun", and being "physically impossible", that they do believe it was deliberately targeted, singled out from other buildings around that area.

I think the answer goes back to my above post, about being "A Little bit MIHOP". I propose that many Truthers, consciously or not, believe that the events of 9/11 can't be "A little bit Natural". Either they were completely natural (a possibility they discount automatically), or they were completely unnatural.

Why must it be completely unnatural? Well, we've seen the answer to that right here: the "first time in history" argument. Were any Truthers to admit the possibility that WTC 7 could have collapsed due sole to the damage and fires, they would have to accept the possibility that the same happened in the case of the Twin Towers. Were they to simply ignore WTC 7, or allow as to how it fell without assistance of the Conspiracy, that would open a hole in their argument that anyone with any brains at all could point out.

Thus, in their propaganda war, they must insist on the collapse of WTC 7 being a deliberate action on the part of the conspiracy, and the fact that that makes absolutely no sense will continue to be swept under the rug by our local truthers.

[JLord]

Your question leads me to a mirror image thought. The really interesting question isn't, "What rational reason do the truthers suggest for destroying WTC 7?" As you begin to see, there is no good answer to that, there's just various flavours of bad answers. It's much more interesting to ask, "Why do the Truthers feel WTC 7 had to have been specifically targeted on 9/11?" It's clear from all their talk of the collapse of WTC 7 being the "smoking gun", and being "physically impossible", that they do believe it was deliberately targeted, singled out from other buildings around that area.

Nice post. Although I do think that someone could take the view that the conspiracy consisted of crashing the planes to take down the main building and building seven was damaged and destroyed accidentally. But you are correct in that the reason for my question was the fact that the truth movement seems to universally regard the destruction of building seven as being a key event, or smoking gun. Definitely part of the deliberate attack.

But if you work through the physics and determine that it had to have been a deliberate demolition I think you still have to ask yourself how that would make sense.

[Sabretooth]

It's really lucky that we have a mechanical engineer like you around to make sure we know the Truth. lol

You don't need to be an engineer. I'm a fireman. I've heard a lot of loud bangs and explosions in a variety of fires in a variety of structures. All of which were bomb-free.

But I'm guessing my quailifcations, service, and training aren't good enough for you because I don't support your obtuse and ludicrous rhetoric.

[Horatius]

Nice post. Although I do think that someone could take the view that the conspiracy consisted of crashing the planes to take down the main building and building seven was damaged and destroyed accidentally. But you are correct in that the reason for my question was the fact that the truth movement seems to universally regard the destruction of building seven as being a key event, or smoking gun. Definitely part of the deliberate attack.


"I do think that someone could take the view that the conspiracy consisted of crashing the planes to take down the main building..."


That would be a more reasonable position to take, depending on exactly what you mean by "take down the building". A conspiracy to crash the planes, and then let the chips fall where they may, would not require any convoluted justifications for WTC 7; as you say, its collapse would be an accidental by-product of the main attack. The problem for the truthers is this part:


But if you work through the physics and determine that it had to have been a deliberate demolition I think you still have to ask yourself how that would make sense.



...most of them got into the truth movement by noting the "evidence" of "controlled demolition" that we've been arguing about all these years. For them to toss out all that "evidence" now is to admit they've been promoting nonsense all this time. And if they try to toss out only the collapse of WTC 7, they run into the problem I mentioned earlier: The natural collapse of WTC 7 proves that such a collapse is possible, calling into question all their evidence about the Towers.

So they're stuck; they either acknowledge the possibility they've been wrong about almost everything, or they keep pushing the same theories, despite their nonsensical aspects.

[bill smith]

So the building was demolished to hide the fact that it was deliberately weakened in preparation of a third plane that never came. That explains why the demolition occured, but then the question would become "why did they plan to crash a third plane into WTC7?"

So it explains the demolition within the context of a failed plane attack on the building, but doesn't explain why the building was targetted within the context of a larger conspiracy. So I would still like to hear any possible theories as to why WTC7 might have been targetted for either demolition or a plane attack.

It should be obvious considering that WTC7 was already pre-rigged with explosives/incendiaries just ike the Twin Towers were that it was slated to become the target for a third plane.

Just think how much neater it all would have been to have three planes and three buildings instaed of two planes, three buildings, a highly suspicious controlled demolition and the pointless crashing of a plane in a field in rural Pennsylvania.

[Horatius]

I'll predict that you'll never get a straight answer from bill about what he believes the motive for attacking WTC 7 was.

.....


Thus, in their propaganda war, they must insist on the collapse of WTC 7 being a deliberate action on the part of the conspiracy, and the fact that that makes absolutely no sense will continue to be swept under the rug by our local truthers.


It should be obvious considering that WTC7 was already pre-rigged with explosives/incendiaries just ike the Twin Towers were that it was slated to become the target for a third plane.

Just think how much neater it all would have been to have three planes and three buildings instaed of two planes, three buildings, a highly suspicious controlled demolition and the pointless crashing of a plane in a field in rural Pennsylvania.




Damn I'm good.


:D

[bill smith]

"I do think that someone could take the view that the conspiracy consisted of crashing the planes to take down the main building..."


That would be a more reasonable position to take, depending on exactly what you mean by "take down the building". A conspiracy to crash the planes, and then let the chips fall where they may, would not require any convoluted justifications for WTC 7; as you say, its collapse would be an accidental by-product of the main attack. The problem for the truthers is this part:






...most of them got into the truth movement by noting the "evidence" of "controlled demolition" that we've been arguing about all these years. For them to toss out all that "evidence" now is to admit they've been promoting nonsense all this time. And if they try to toss out only the collapse of WTC 7, they run into the problem I mentioned earlier: The natural collapse of WTC 7 proves that such a collapse is possible, calling into question all their evidence about the Towers.

So they're stuck; they either acknowledge the possibility they've been wrong about almost everything, or they keep pushing the same theories, despite their nonsensical aspects.

It's you who is wrong as usual Horatius. I invite the Readers to assess your interpretation of a '' natural collapse of WTC7 '' in the photos in the attached hyperlink.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6259565&postcount=55 hyperlink

[bill smith]

You don't need to be an engineer. I'm a fireman. I've heard a lot of loud bangs and explosions in a variety of fires in a variety of structures. All of which were bomb-free.

But I'm guessing my quailifcations, service, and training aren't good enough for you because I don't support your obtuse and ludicrous rhetoric.

Just as a matter of interest Sabretooth- why couldn't the obviously small initial fires in WTC7 have been put out with hundreds of fire extinguishers requisitioned from nearby skyscrapers ?

[Sabretooth]

Just as a matter of interest Sabretooth- why couldn't the obviously small initial fires in WTC7 have been put out with hundreds of fire extinguishers requisitioned from nearby skyscrapers ?
Well, considering much of the remaining (ie: not dead or injured) manpower went into S&R operations immediately after 1 & 2 had collapsed, I can't imagine much thought was put into a building that had since been evacuated. By the time it had gotten attention on anyone's radar, the building was already lost.

If I was scene commander, my focus would have been entirely on the S&R of my brothers. Life comes first, not property.

[The Platypus]

It should be obvious considering that WTC7 was already pre-rigged with explosives/incendiaries just ike the Twin Towers were that it was slated to become the target for a third plane.

Just think how much neater it all would have been to have three planes and three buildings instaed of two planes, three buildings, a highly suspicious controlled demolition and the pointless crashing of a plane in a field in rural Pennsylvania.

What's suspicious is how do you know WTC 1,2 & 7 were pre-rigged with explosives and that 7 was the target for a third plane???

In order to know that you must have been in on it!!! :jaw-dropp

[jhunter1163]

WTC 7 owner Larry Silverstein, who leased the rest of the WTC six weeks before 9/11 for $3.2 billion and sued his insurers of his complex for $7.2 billion and who’s life was spared at the WTC on 9/11 because he had a doctor’s appointment, received $861 million for the Seven’s collapse in which debt owed on it was only $383 million.

One little tidbit that isn't mentioned in this quote: Silverstein had to pay $700 million to have WTC7 rebuilt. So, Silverstein actually lost $222 million on WTC7.

[bill smith]

Well, considering much of the remaining (ie: not dead or injured) manpower went into S&R operations immediately after 1 & 2 had collapsed, I can't imagine much thought was put into a building that had since been evacuated. By the time it had gotten attention on anyone's radar, the building was already lost.

If I was scene commander, my focus would have been entirely on the S&R of my brothers. Life comes first, not property.

No, professionals remain professional. Otherwise they are not professionals. Do you umderstand ?

A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens. It was a simple matter to save some muti-million dolllar real estate by pulling a few dozen firemen off the pile and to extinguish those small initial fires in WTC7.

[Alareth]

So why was the plane flying towards Washington and not NYC?

Yes, why? There is nothing notable in the nation's capital that could be a worthy target.

and who had ever heard of the WT7 before 911? Off all the plausible terrorists targets in NYC or Wasjington, what would have been the rationale for attacking a relative nonentity?

Nobody. In fact it the truthers didn't rant about it ad nauseum most of the world still would never have heard of it.

As for the rationale, there is none because building 7 WAS NEVER ATTACKED. A much larger and well known architectural landmark that was attacked FELL ON IT.

[Sabretooth]

No, professionals remain professional. Otherwise they are not professionals. Do you umderstand ?

A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens. It was a simple matter to save some muti-million dolllar real estate by pulling a few dozen firemen off the pile and to extinguish those small initial fires in WTC7.

NO. You are DEAD wrong. Period.

Absolutely NO firefighter puts possessions or property before LIFE. EVER.

And, in the case of 9/11, that statement applies ten-fold. Those fire departments had just lost a hundred of their brothers. They would not, and could not, be taken away from saving the survivors.

...and this pile of horse**** you had the nerve to even type:
A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens.
...shows me you don't know the first thing about firefighting or what it means to the men and women who do it day in and out. LIFE comes first. PERIOD. NO Fire Scene Commander would ever...EVER...choose to put his men in harms way to save ANYTHING that wasn't essential. Especially when there are LIVES to save from the first two buildings.

Yeah...I'd like to see you explain that one to a family that just lost a dad, mom, son, sister..."I'm sorry we couldn't save your dad from being buried under a bunch of bricks, but we saved the heck outta that Beamer across the street!"...Edited for civility.

Either you are really that pompous and bold to assume you know anything about firefighters, or you are just pushing me to put you on ignore so you can blather on without having to worry about one less person questioning your retarded opinions. Edited for civility.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I don't see anyone saying that because something has not happened it can't happen.

Red, seriously... why do you say things like this? You know it's not true. You know that we know it's not true. That because it has never happened before (according to your limited knowledge) it therefore cannot happen is exactly what you and your fellow truthers have been saying since 9/12/2001. And you've been discussing this topic here long enough to know this.

When those of us familiar with your history see comments like this, we're just going to think to ourselves "RedIbis is a frakking liar". You are not winning friends this way. Not only that, you are saying to us that you feel the only way forward for you is to lie to us. Even when you know that lie will fall flat on its face.

I can't think of any rational explanation for why you do this, Red.

The fact that you have to to tell such blatant obvious lies is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.

It one of numerous devastating blows to your absurd fantasies.

[Horatius]

It's you who is wrong as usual Horatius. I invite the Readers to assess your interpretation of a '' natural collapse of WTC7 '' in the photos in the attached hyperlink.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6259565&postcount=55 hyperlink



And I invite "The Readers" to consider how, exactly as I predicted, you have avoided the point yet again.


I see others have addressed your other posts with the vehemence they deserve, so I shall forbear further comment.

[triforcharity]

Well, considering much of the remaining (ie: not dead or injured) manpower went into S&R operations immediately after 1 & 2 had collapsed, I can't imagine much thought was put into a building that had since been evacuated. By the time it had gotten attention on anyone's radar, the building was already lost.

If I was scene commander, my focus would have been entirely on the S&R of my brothers. Life comes first, not property.

He has been explained this many times over. I have explained this to him, others have too.

He doesn't understand that concept.

[sheeplesnshills]

Just think how much neater it all would have been to have three planes and three buildings instaed of two planes, three buildings, a highly suspicious controlled demolition and the pointless crashing of a plane in a field in rural Pennsylvania.

I do not know of any sane person that would describe the collapse of WTC as "highly suspicious" Please explain exactly what it should have looked like and why, list all assumptions and show working.;)

[beachnut]

So I think that WTC 7 was demo'd because "they" could not find a power outlet?

The fact that you have to make cheap unfunny "jokes" is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.

It remains the single most devastating blow to the official fantasy.
The Insanity of 911 truth; when will you figure it out? lol

8 years of no evidence, idiotic delusions, and pure stupidity - 911 truth

Not a thing you can about it.
The joke is, that is basically the 911 truth CT.

[sheeplesnshills]

No, professionals remain professional. Otherwise they are not professionals. Do you umderstand ?

A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens. It was a simple matter to save some muti-million dolllar real estate by pulling a few dozen firemen off the pile and to extinguish those small initial fires in WTC7.


Lets see, they have just lost hundreds of their colleagues fighting fires in tall buildings.........and you really expect them to risk dozens more for the sake of the WTC7?????
You really can't be this dumb, or can you?:confused:

[sheeplesnshills]

Just as a matter of interest Sabretooth- why couldn't the obviously small initial fires in WTC7 have been put out with hundreds of fire extinguishers requisitioned from nearby skyscrapers ?

Please show us that the fires could have been put out with extinguishers. Please list all assumptions and show working;)

I take you have never fought a fire either......extinguishers are only useful in the first few minutes, if that of a fire. When the North Tower came down no one gave a Carp about fires in WTC7 for much longer than that!

[ElMondoHummus]

Damn I'm good.


:D

Whatever. You predicted water being wet, ya know. ;):p:D

[tsig]

Are you sure that yu are not projecting a little there Sheeples ? I mean you are a professional Mechanical Engineer and yet you say that these pictures attached represent a natural fire-driven collapse of a massive steel framed structure. No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire. In fact the only way one has been cleanly brought down like in the picture is by explosive controlled demolition.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 seconds later

Got any evidence of any other 110 story buildings being demolished by CD's? If not then we have to say that it is the first time in the history of the world that 110 story buildings have been destroyed by CD's.

[Horatius]

Whatever. You predicted water being wet, ya know. ;):p:D



Well, it was, wasn't it?!?!?


Wet blanket!

[triforcharity]

Please show us that the fires could have been put out with extinguishers. Please list all assumptions and show working;)

I take you have never fought a fire either......extinguishers are only useful in the first few minutes, if that of a fire. When the North Tower came down no one gave a Carp about fires in WTC7 for much longer than that!

Nobody gave a fish? :D

[fess]

Originally Posted by bill smith
No, professionals remain professional. Otherwise they are not professionals. Do you umderstand ?

A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens. It was a simple matter to save some muti-million dolllar real estate by pulling a few dozen firemen off the pile and to extinguish those small initial fires in WTC7.

Lets see, they have just lost hundreds of their colleagues fighting fires in tall buildings.........and you really expect them to risk dozens more for the sake of the WTC7?????
You really can't be this dumb, or can you?:confused:
Actually, it appears that, yes he/she can.

[dc1971]

A better way of putting the question might be ' why did they have to pull WTC7 ''

There's always the question of; Why do Truthers insist on taking Larry Silverstein's statement about abandoning rescue operations out of context?? Specifically you Mr. Smith??

[dc1971]

Lets see, they have just lost hundreds of their colleagues fighting fires in tall buildings.........and you really expect them to risk dozens more for the sake of the WTC7?????
You really can't be this dumb, or can you?:confused:

Well, Bill does come across as being pretty dumb don't you think?

[dc1971]

No, professionals remain professional. Otherwise they are not professionals. Do you umderstand ?

A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens. It was a simple matter to save some muti-million dolllar real estate by pulling a few dozen firemen off the pile and to extinguish those small initial fires in WTC7.

Small initial fires, eh? Okay! Keep thinking that... meanwhile there are facts to look at once you decide to stop being stupid!

[dc1971]

Well, considering much of the remaining (ie: not dead or injured) manpower went into S&R operations immediately after 1 & 2 had collapsed, I can't imagine much thought was put into a building that had since been evacuated. By the time it had gotten attention on anyone's radar, the building was already lost.

If I was scene commander, my focus would have been entirely on the S&R of my brothers. Life comes first, not property.

Interesting how Bill tries to tell a firefighter how to be a firefighter.

[The Charnel Expanse]

Maybe it was haunted like the house in Poltergeist

Hell, there's more evidence for the existence of ghosts than there is for WTC7 having been demo'd, right?

[beachnut]

No, professionals remain professional. Otherwise they are not professionals. Do you umderstand ?

A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens. It was a simple matter to save some muti-million dolllar real estate by pulling a few dozen firemen off the pile and to extinguish those small initial fires in WTC7.
Small fires? You constantly make up idiotic lies, or are you repeating lies for fun?
The firemen worked all day! All night, some for days; you spew lies, the firemen worked and saved lives; you spew lies for 8 years.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/NYFDWTCfire.jpg



Here are your small fires in 7...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3.jpg
Small; go ahead, charge into an empty building with no water and do what? What have you not lied about? Nothing; no lie is too delusional for you to post. Good job apologizing for terrorists and making up lies and insults about those who saved lives

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The thing with ghosts and other paranormal phenomena is there is often no scientifically useful definition for them. There's no way to test for them.

Not so with the alleged explosive controlled demolition of WTC7. We know exactly what a controlled demolition looks like and we know exactly what to look for. While the tinfoilers bitch and whine incessantly about a handful of superficial similarities, none of the characteristics which are unique to controlled demolitions are observed in the collapse of WTC7.

[bill smith]

Small fires? You constantly make up idiotic lies, or are you repeating lies for fun?
The firemen worked all day! All night, some for days; you spew lies, the firemen worked and saved lives; you spew lies for 8 years.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/NYFDWTCfire.jpg



Here are your small fires in 7...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3.jpg
Small; go ahead, charge into an empty building with no water and do what? What have you not lied about? Nothing; no lie is too delusional for you to post. Good job apologizing for terrorists and making up lies and insults about those who saved lives

You wouldn't try to trick the Readers would you Beachnut ? Are you sure that the top photo is WTC7 at all ?

Beware Readers....they will try any shabby trick now...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You wouldn't try to trick the Readers would you Beachnut ? Are you sure that the top photo is WTC7 at all ?

Beware Readers....they will try any shabby trick now...

The only person I see lying here is you Bill (and RedIbis, but that's another thing).

Beachnut didn't say the top photo was of WTC7.

[bill smith]

NO. You are DEAD wrong. Period.

Absolutely NO firefighter puts possessions or property before LIFE. EVER.

And, in the case of 9/11, that statement applies ten-fold. Those fire departments had just lost a hundred of their brothers. They would not, and could not, be taken away from saving the survivors.

...and this pile of horse**** you had the nerve to even type:

...shows me you don't know the first thing about firefighting or what it means to the men and women who do it day in and out. LIFE comes first. PERIOD. NO Fire Scene Commander would ever...EVER...choose to put his men in harms way to save ANYTHING that wasn't essential. Especially when there are LIVES to save from the first two buildings.

Yeah...I'd like to see you explain that one to a family that just lost a dad, mom, son, sister..."I'm sorry we couldn't save your dad from being buried under a bunch of bricks, but we saved the heck outta that Beamer across the street!"...Edited for civility.

Either you are really that pompous and bold to assume you know anything about firefighters, or you are just pushing me to put you on ignore so you can blather on without having to worry about one less person questioning your retarded opinions. Edited for civility.

Any level headed fire commander could immediately see that the chance of suvivors in the WTC collapses was close to nil. Apart from that you don't want all these big firemen walking around on top of the rubble and possibly squashing those potential but highly unlikely survivors.

So the fire commender at tWTC7 should have ordered that those small fires be extinguished by hand using hundreds of fire extinguishers requisitioned from srrounding buildings.

[Safe-Keeper]

8,575$ for that?! And it only shreds "up to 16 pages"?! That is ridiculous! If you ask me, the ninJews went with the right decision.I know this is a very stupid question, but why do they use shredders at a cost of several thousand dollars to get rid of sensitive documents when they can just, you know, burn them?

Are industrial-grade matches several thousand dollars a box, too?

(I have a feeling it's got to do with emissions or something?)

[bill smith]

I do not know of any sane person that would describe the collapse of WTC as "highly suspicious" Please explain exactly what it should have looked like and why, list all assumptions and show working.;)

Just read the posts and keep taking the tablets and you'll be fine...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Any level headed fire commander could immediately see that the chance of suvivors in the WTC collapses was close to nil. Apart from that you don't want all these big firemen walking around on top of the rubble and possibly squashing those potential but highly unlikely survivors.

So the fire commender at tWTC7 should have ordered that those small fires be extinguished by hand using hundreds of fire extinguishers requisitioned from srrounding buildings.

Facebook --> "9/11 Conspiracy Theories are BS" --> Discussion section

For those times when you need a little more freedom than what JREF provides.

[Sam.I.Am]

Man, I do hope that someday our Bill Smith isn't trapped in a collapsed building where the odds of survival were slim and that he ends up with a scene commander that thinks like he does. Because that would really suck to be lying there for a long time, thirsty and in pain thinking that somebody is looking for him and then realizing that nobody is.

[bill smith]

Man, I do hope that someday our Bill Smith isn't trapped in a collapsed building where the odds of survival were slim and that he ends up with a scene commander that thinks like he does. Because that would really suck to be lying there for a long time, thirsty and in pain thinking that somebody is looking for him and then realizing that nobody is.

We need professionals who will take the tough calculated decisions without hesitation SAm. That's one of thr reasons that we don't hire schoolgirls as fire commanders.

No survivors could have been expected and I'm happy to put up the Chandler collapse analysis of WTC1 up to demonstate why if you want. So it would have been seen as quite useless for hundreds of firemen to go trawling for survivors through the rubble of a completely collapsed quarter-mile high skyscraper.

Regardless that 10 or 15 survivors were eventually rescued from a surviving stairwell stump.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We need professionals who will take the tough calculated decisions without hesitation SAm.

We've had the privilege of having some of those professionals participate in the discussions here in 9/11 CTs, and they have all, without exception, been saying that you are full of @#$%.

[Scott Jurgenson]

Your question leads me to a mirror image thought. The really interesting question isn't, "What rational reason do the truthers suggest for destroying WTC 7?" As you begin to see, there is no good answer to that, there's just various flavours of bad answers. It's much more interesting to ask, "Why do the Truthers feel WTC 7 had to have been specifically targeted on 9/11?" It's clear from all their talk of the collapse of WTC 7 being the "smoking gun", and being "physically impossible", that they do believe it was deliberately targeted, singled out from other buildings around that area.




Gage takes this approach often when he's interviewed. The person doing the interview will ask him to put together a coherent theory on why WTC7 would have been demo'd and he will just go back to pointing out anomalies and inc inconsistencies of the story. It's brain numbing.

[Sabrina]

I know this is a very stupid question, but why do they use shredders at a cost of several thousand dollars to get rid of sensitive documents when they can just, you know, burn them?

Are industrial-grade matches several thousand dollars a box, too?

(I have a feeling it's got to do with emissions or something?)

There are five accepted methods of destroying sensitive documents, according to DoD regulations. Burning, shredding, pulping, pulverizing, or chemical decomposition. Due to the regulations, there are specific guidelines for each of those methods, however; the shredders, for instance, have to shred the document down to remnants that are no larger than a certain size so as to prevent potential reconstruction. Same goes for the other methods, and yes, due to the regulations regarding pollution, incinerators used to destroy government documents have to meet defined standards as well. You can't just toss everything in a burn barrel and light a match to it. Burning IS the preferred method, but only in small amounts; i.e. the amount of paperwork that would normally need to be destroyed in most government agencies is likely much too immense to burn and ensure beyond a reasonable doubt that the documents are obliterated beyond any hope of recovery.

[Horatius]

Gage takes this approach often when he's interviewed. The person doing the interview will ask him to put together a coherent theory on why WTC7 would have been demo'd and he will just go back to pointing out anomalies and inc inconsistencies of the story. It's brain numbing.



Here's the really funny thing: They go on and on about how WTC 7 is the smoking gun that "proves the conspiracy", but what they don't realize is that WTC 7 is also the Achilles Heel of the truth movement: it's the one part of the "False Flag Attack" that simply makes no sense at all.

[bill smith]

Here's the really funny thing: They go on and on about how WTC 7 is the smoking gun that "proves the conspiracy", but what they don't realize is that WTC 7 is also the Achilles Heel of the truth movement: it's the one part of the "False Flag Attack" that simply makes no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense SOT. The perps HAD to bring it down and before any more light was lost.. When the building fell there were no great gouts of fire and sparks being belched out of the collapsing building as the air was compressed out the windows. If it had been any darker that fact would have made the lack of fire even more painfully obvious.

[excaza]

It makes perfect sense SOT. The perps HAD to bring it down and before any more light was lost.. When the building fell there were no great gouts of fire and sparks being belched out of the collapsing building as the air was compressed out the windows. If it had been any darker that fact would have made the lack of fire even more painfully obvious.

I like how fire works in your world.

[Sabretooth]

Any level headed fire commander could immediately see that the chance of suvivors in the WTC collapses was close to nil. Apart from that you don't want all these big firemen walking around on top of the rubble and possibly squashing those potential but highly unlikely survivors.

So the fire commender at tWTC7 should have ordered that those small fires be extinguished by hand using hundreds of fire extinguishers requisitioned from srrounding buildings.

So the big-bad, moms-basement-dwelling troll thinks he knows how to fight fires and save lives better than the professionals?

I formally invite you to come down to my firehall and have that discussion with us. Bring your friends if you wish. Bellevue Volunteer Fire Dept in Cheektowaga, NY (a suburb of Buffalo). We are there every Wednesday night after 7:00pm. Hell, I'll even make sure I'm there at any time you feel it is convenient for you.

This isn't a joke. I seriously want you to pay us a visit. If you need directions or other details, please let me know whether it be in private or on the board.

This is also an open invitation to anyone else who believes Bill has a point or is in any way correct in his thinking delusions.

I, personally, am sick and tired of your totally arrogant and ignorant banter here. And I'm quite positive you don't have the nerve to even entertain the idea of saying this garbage to a firefighter's face.

[JimBenArm]

Why did they pull it?

Because if you PUSH something hard enough, it will fall over.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It makes perfect sense SOT. The perps HAD to bring it down and before any more light was lost.. When the building fell there were no great gouts of fire and sparks being belched out of the collapsing building as the air was compressed out the windows. If it had been any darker that fact would have made the lack of fire even more painfully obvious.

Firefighters saw massive fires raging throughout the building, smoke was observed and recorded pouring from every floor. WTC7 was quite probably the largest office building fire in history.

But that's neither here nor there. You haven't tried to answer why did the phantom "they" feel the need to bring it down.

That they couldn't find a plug in for the paper shredder or that Silverstein wanted to lose billions in lost income from the WTC complex are non-starters. There is no remaining motive that makes the slightest shred of sense.

[Sabretooth]

Man, I do hope that someday our Bill Smith isn't trapped in a collapsed building where the odds of survival were slim and that he ends up with a scene commander that thinks like he does. Because that would really suck to be lying there for a long time, thirsty and in pain thinking that somebody is looking for him and then realizing that nobody is.

That comment he made...the one about keeping the eye on the prize or the goal or whatever...he's making it sound like saving lives is a friggin sport :jaw-dropp

I can't even imagine how these CTer's would have reacted if the FDNY followed Bill's SOP's.

"...well, everyone, we expended a few more bodies and potentially killed a few more people and our brothers...and we didn't bother trying to rescue anyone because, well, just because...but we put out the fires in WTC7! Too bad it's gonna have to be demolished anyway..."

Bill is a troll...I wholeheartedly believe his sole existance here is to try and get a rise out of people. Based on the intelligence level I've seen from him, I can't say I'm surprised, seeing that's all he really has to offer.

[Horatius]

It makes perfect sense SOT. The perps HAD to bring it down and before any more light was lost.. When the building fell there were no great gouts of fire and sparks being belched out of the collapsing building as the air was compressed out the windows. If it had been any darker that fact would have made the lack of fire even more painfully obvious.


Who the **** is SOT?


Oh, and bill, for "The Readers", I'll note that, once again, you've avoided to issue of why they had to destroy WTC 7 at all.

We're not asking why they destroyed it at that time.

We're not asking you how they destroyed it.

We're not asking you how you know they destroyed it.


What we are asking you is, why did they target it in the first place? During the planning stages, when they were choosing targets, what was their motivation for including WTC 7 at all?

That you continue to avoid answering the real question, preferring to answer your fantasy questions instead, will be blatantly obvious to anyone reading this thread with an open mind. Do you really want to come off as that evasive?

Well, no you don't want to, but you have to, because you know that you have no good answer for our real question.


Cue bill's next avoidance.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Who the **** is SOT?

Me.

Billy doesn't even read the names on the posts he is responding to. It's why his posts come out sounding so stupid.

[excaza]

To be honest I didn't even know there were buildings other than the two towers in the WTC complex. Granted, I was 13, but still. If The Man was trying to shock the US even more, why not pick something more iconic? Chrysler Building? Empire State Building? Seriously, who even cared about WT7? It wasn't symbolic in any way.

[carlitos]

Bill is a troll...I wholeheartedly believe his sole existance here is to try and get a rise out of people. Based on the intelligence level I've seen from him, I can't say I'm surprised, seeing that's all he really has to offer.

Correct. Using the 'ignore' feature on bill cleans up most of these threads, although some people do feel they have to quote him for some annoying reason.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

He's like an intellectual train wreck though. It's difficult to turn away. ;)

[Miragememories]

Correct. Using the 'ignore' feature on bill cleans up most of these threads, although some people do feel they have to quote him for some annoying reason.
You can run but you can't ignore.

MM

[Horatius]

Correct. Using the 'ignore' feature on bill cleans up most of these threads, although some people do feel they have to quote him for some annoying reason.



I've PMed him a few times, and the sad part is, I think he thinks he's being sincere.

[DGM]

You can run but you can't ignore.

MM
Who's running? You guys come to us.

Too funny!!!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You can run but you can't ignore.

MM

Maybe you can explain for us, MM, why the NWO blows up half-billion dollar skyscrapers in place of deploying a ten thousand dollar paper shredder?

From our position, the NWO (or the people who made it up) look pretty stupid.

[JimBenArm]

I can't ignore?
Wow. Must be a lot going on outside of here.
Funny how no one ever sees it. I never hear anything about it anywhere but here.
No wonder it's so hard to ignore...

[carlitos]

He's like an intellectual train wreck though. It's difficult to turn away. ;)
I understand, but somtimes with 3 or 5 people quoting him, it's like his posts have that gremliny-multiplier thing going on.I've PMed him a few times, and the sad part is, I think he thinks he's being sincere.
Now that is scary. To me, he seemed to change his arguments all the time, just to provoke. That must be a pretty flexible mindset. Or, more likely, my theory that it's 4 drunk university kids in Germany, with 4chan on one window, and this on the other.

[bill smith]

Who the **** is SOT?


Oh, and bill, for "The Readers", I'll note that, once again, you've avoided to issue of why they had to destroy WTC 7 at all.

We're not asking why they destroyed it at that time.

We're not asking you how they destroyed it.

We're not asking you how you know they destroyed it.


What we are asking you is, why did they target it in the first place? During the planning stages, when they were choosing targets, what was their motivation for including WTC 7 at all?

That you continue to avoid answering the real question, preferring to answer your fantasy questions instead, will be blatantly obvious to anyone reading this thread with an open mind. Do you really want to come off as that evasive?

Well, no you don't want to, but you have to, because you know that you have no good answer for our real question.


Cue bill's next avoidance.

So you would like me to post the reason why WTC7 HAD to be demolished again ? You only have to say 'yes' and I will post it .

[excaza]

Yes, I think asking "Why did they target it in the first place" means he wants the reason why WT7 was targeted in the first place.

[Horatius]

So you would like me to post the reason why WTC7 HAD to be demolished again ? You only have to say 'yes' and I will post it .


Yes.

[bill smith]

I've PMed him a few times, and the sad part is, I think he thinks he's being sincere.

Now Readers we will pull Horatius's tail just a little bit. He talks about me ' thinking I am sincere ' ( which I fully maintain that I am for 100% )) I further maintain that Horatius is not sincere.

So I am going to show him two picturess in a hyperlink

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6259565&postcount=55 hyperlink

What I want to know is this.

1. Do these photos show a natural collapse without human intervention ?

2. Does it look like the results of a controlled demolition

You Readers know by know how to mesure these guys by their answers.

[JLord]

It should be obvious considering that WTC7 was already pre-rigged with explosives/incendiaries just ike the Twin Towers were that it was slated to become the target for a third plane.

Just think how much neater it all would have been to have three planes and three buildings instaed of two planes, three buildings, a highly suspicious controlled demolition and the pointless crashing of a plane in a field in rural Pennsylvania.

Like I said earlier, if this is the case it just changes my question from "Why did they pull it" to "Why was it slated for a third plane attack?"

Because it would difficult to explain why a conspiracy (or terrorists for that matter) would want to target three iconic structures that are widely known the world over, and then one unknown and relatively insignificant building.

(I also was of the impression that the fourth plane was heading towards D.C. so I don't know if there is reason to believe it was targeting WTC7 at all.)

[Disbelief]

Now Readers we will pull Horatius's tail just a little bit. He talks about me ' thinking I am sincere ' ( which I fully maintain that I am for 100% )) I further maintain that Horatius is not sincere.

So I am going to show him two picturess in a hyperlink

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6259565&postcount=55 hyperlink

What I want to know is this.

1. Do these photos show a natural collapse without human intervention ?

2. Does it look like the results of a controlled demolition

You Readers know by know how to mesure these guys by their answers.

For about the 5th time, the second pictures is days later, not seconds later. Why are you still lying when this has been shown to you?

[JimBenArm]

So you still can't answer the question you were asked, huh?

Nice try at changing the subject.

[HawksFan]

Bill, you DO realize they DID find survivors in the rubble, yes?

[bill smith]

Yes.

I can't find the actual ost but it flows directly out of the one in the hyperlink. I just need to add that the perps absolutely HAD to get rid of the extensive evidence of these weakening explosions they had carried out in wTC7. The building had to go.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6260349&postcount=79 hyperlink

[excaza]

I can't find the actual ost but it flows directly out of the one in the hyperlink. I just need to add that the perps absolutely HAD to get rid of the extensive evidence of these weakening explosions they had carried out in wTC7. The building had to go.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6260349&postcount=79 hyperlink

That doesn't come even remotely close to answering the question. Why was WTC7 targeted in the first place? Why would you target 3 iconic structures (both towers and the pentagon) and then some rinkydink building people outside of NYC have probably never even heard of?

[JimBenArm]

I can't find the actual ost but it flows directly out of the one in the hyperlink. I just need to add that the perps absolutely HAD to get rid of the extensive evidence of these weakening explosions they had carried out in wTC7. The building had to go.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6260349&postcount=79 hyperlink

Why were there "weakening explosions" to start with?
Why were they attempting to bring down WTC7 to begin with?
Please pay attention to what you're actually being asked, not what you want to blather on about.

[bill smith]

Like I said earlier, if this is the case it just changes my question from "Why did they pull it" to "Why was it slated for a third plane attack?"

Because it would difficult to explain why a conspiracy (or terrorists for that matter) would want to target three iconic structures that are widely known the world over, and then one unknown and relatively insignificant building.

(I also was of the impression that the fourth plane was heading towards D.C. so I don't know if there is reason to believe it was targeting WTC7 at all.)

The first 'why' was merely a tactical neccessity. The second 'why' is because it was part of a grand strategic plan.

[Disbelief]

For about the 5th time, the second pictures is days later, not seconds later. Why are you still lying when this has been shown to you?

Bill, are you going to admit that you are lying about your statement?

[JimBenArm]

The first 'why' was merely a tactical neccessity. The second 'why' is because it was part of a grand strategic plan.

Please enlighten us about this "grand strategic plan".
Make sure to use actual words, not just think it in your head. We are skeptics. We don't read minds.

[bill smith]

Now Readers we will pull Horatius's tail just a little bit. He talks about me ' thinking I am sincere ' ( which I fully maintain that I am for 100% )) I further maintain that Horatius is not sincere.

So I am going to show him two picturess in a hyperlink

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6259565&postcount=55 hyperlink

What I want to know is this.

1. Do these photos show a natural collapse without human intervention ?

2. Does it look like the results of a controlled demolition

You Readers know by know how to mesure these guys by their answers.

Now where's he gone......lol

[bill smith]

Bill, are you going to admit that you are lying about your statement?

I shouldn't even waste the time to answer a question like this.

Two days after the event the collapsed pile would have looked exactly the same.

[Scott Jurgenson]

I shouldn't even waste the time to answer a question like this.

Two days after the event the collapsed pile would have looked exactly the same.

Do you say things like this to get a rise out of people?

[bill smith]

Please enlighten us about this "grand strategic plan".
Make sure to use actual words, not just think it in your head. We are skeptics. We don't read minds.

I don't know if you are ready for that yet Jim. I'll have to soften you guys up a bit more first.

[JimBenArm]

I don't know if you are ready for that yet Jim. I'll have to soften you guys up a bit more first.

Dodge noted.
So you don't have any idea, hmm?
Why not just say so, instead of the tap-dancing and innuendo?

I don't need to be softened up. I need straight answers from a mature, intelligent adult. Know where I can find one? Sure isn't one on the other end of this internet connection.

[bill smith]

Dodge noted.
So you don't have any idea, hmm?
Why not just say so, instead of the tap-dancing and innuendo?

I don't need to be softened up. I need straight answers from a mature, intelligent adult. Know where I can find one? Sure isn't one on the other end of this internet connection.

Later Jim. It's been years already. What's another while ?

[Horatius]

Who the **** is SOT?


Oh, and bill, for "The Readers", I'll note that, once again, you've avoided to issue of why they had to destroy WTC 7 at all.

We're not asking why they destroyed it at that time.

We're not asking you how they destroyed it.

We're not asking you how you know they destroyed it.


What we are asking you is, why did they target it in the first place? During the planning stages, when they were choosing targets, what was their motivation for including WTC 7 at all?

That you continue to avoid answering the real question, preferring to answer your fantasy questions instead, will be blatantly obvious to anyone reading this thread with an open mind. Do you really want to come off as that evasive?

Well, no you don't want to, but you have to, because you know that you have no good answer for our real question.


Cue bill's next avoidance.

So you would like me to post the reason why WTC7 HAD to be demolished again ? You only have to say 'yes' and I will post it .

Yes.

I can't find the actual ost but it flows directly out of the one in the hyperlink. I just need to add that the perps absolutely HAD to get rid of the extensive evidence of these weakening explosions they had carried out in wTC7. The building had to go.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6260349&postcount=79 hyperlink


Sigh. Let's look at that link......


that's true...so ?

Sigh.....I guess I'll have to guide you a little..


Remember the Barry Jennings video ? Remember Barry was talking about how the inside of WTC7 had explosions going on all over it ? This was to pre-weaken the building in anticipation of the plane crashing into it and the ensuing demolition some time later. Just like the Twin Towers really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Barry Jennings

So obviously the perps couldn't permit people see the inside of the building after the plane failed to arrive. It had to go.




So, Dear Readers*, here we have it. bill has literally gone about in a circle, back to one of his first non-answers to the question that was being asked.








*And can I just say,it's incredibly cute how bill seems to think that, not only are there great numbers of anonymous "Readers" out there following our every word, but that they're also all on his side.





Now Readers we will pull Horatius's tail just a little bit. He talks about me ' thinking I am sincere ' ( which I fully maintain that I am for 100% )) I further maintain that Horatius is not sincere.



Of course you don't think I'm sincere; that would require you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong, and we know that you'll never do that.



So, let's see what you're doing to my tail.....



So I am going to show him two picturess in a hyperlink

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6259565&postcount=55 hyperlink


What I want to know is this.

1. Do these photos show a natural collapse without human intervention ?



Well, the first one certainly doesn't, as it's a standing building.

The second one doesn't, as it's a pile of rubble, not a "collapse".




2. Does it look like the results of a controlled demolition

You Readers know by know how to mesure these guys by their answers.


Third verse, same as the first: Well, the first one certainly doesn't, as it's a standing building.

As for the second one, (and here's where he'll claim I'm not "sincere"), I'll concede a superficial resemblance. But in fact it doesn't look like the results of controlled demolition, as there's a ******** of debris lying outside the footprint of the building, and in fact, lying all over adjacent properties.

[JimBenArm]

Later Jim. It's been years already. What's another while ?

Nothing to me.

Just shows your "readers" that you're an intellectual coward and poser.

Not that there was ever any serious doubt about that.

[Horatius]

Now where's he gone......lol


Well now, don't you feel stupid?




The first 'why' was merely a tactical neccessity. The second 'why' is because it was part of a grand strategic plan.

I don't know if you are ready for that yet Jim. I'll have to soften you guys up a bit more first.

Later Jim. It's been years already. What's another while ?


And there he goes again, and again, and again. I'm getting dizzy!

[bill smith]

Sigh. Let's look at that link......







So, Dear Readers*, here we have it. bill has literally gone about in a circle, back to one of his first non-answers to the question that was being asked.








*And can I just say,it's incredibly cute how bill seems to think that, not only are there great numbers of anonymous "Readers" out there following our every word, but that they're also all on his side?








Of course you don't think I'm sincere; that would require you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong, and we know that you'll never do that.



So, let's see what you're doing to my tail.....






Well, the first one certainly doesn't, as it's a standing building.

The second one doesn't, as it's a pile of rubble, not a "collapse".






Third verse, same as the first: Well, the first one certainly doesn't, as it's a standing building.

As for the second one, (and here's where he'll claim I'm not "sincere"), I'll concede a superficial resemblance. But in fact it doesn't look like the results of controlled demolition, as there's a ******** of debris lying outside the footprint of the building, and in fact, lying all over adjacent properties.

About your tail....I'm doing a Silverstein on it. lol

Well I'll just have to let the Readers make yop their own minds. I know how it reads. Most enjoyably in fact.

[Horatius]

About you tail....I think I'll do a Silverstein on it. lol



Just make sure you never actually answer the question.


Wouldn't want to spoil your perfect record.

[JLord]

The second 'why' is because it was part of a grand strategic plan.

This is I guess what I should have been asking all along. I am willing to accept that the tower was demolished and I should have made this clear in my original post.

I also accept that the had to do to hide evidence of the failed plane attack. I didn't realize this when I first posted so I asked the wrong question.

Knowing what I now know, I will ask again a different way:

What possible conspiracy theory (or grand strategic plan) can you think of in which it would make sense to have WTC7 as a target?

[bill smith]

Nothing to me.

Just shows your "readers" that you're an intellectual coward and poser.

Not that there was ever any serious doubt about that.

Ah well, we will see in the fullness of time.

[Captain_Swoop]

I would like to know why the building had to be a target. I can't think of any sane reason.

On the fighting of the fire in WTC7.
I am a trained firefighter, I did 3 courses at the RN Firefighting School while I was in the Navy. I was trained to fight aircraft fires ammunition fires and fires on and between decks on a Warship. To even think that in anything but a life and death sutuation I would be asked to enter somewhere to tackle an already established fire with hand extinguishers is madness, double madness high up in a hirise building.

[Sabretooth]

WOW.

Ladies and gentlemen...step right up! Please draw your attention to Bill Smith's posts! You never again find a more perfect example of arrogance, ignorance, lack of evidence, and evading the question in the world!

C'mon! See the show!

[JimBenArm]

Ah well, we will see in the fullness of time.

Something's getting full.
Or is it someone who's already full. Of something.

[Sabretooth]

I would like to know why the building had to be a target. I can't think of any sane reason.

On the fighting of the fire in WTC7.
I am a trained firefighter, I did 3 courses at the RN Firefighting School while I was in the Navy. I was trained to fight aircraft fires ammunition fires and fires on and between decks on a Warship. To even think that in anything but a life and death sutuation I would be asked to enter somewhere to tackle an already established fire with hand extinguishers is madness, double madness high up in a hirise building.

According to Bill, materials come before life. What's a few more bodies when we have office desks to save?!

[bill smith]

WOW.

Ladies and gentlemen...step right up! Please draw your attention to Bill Smith's posts! You never again find a more perfect example of arrogance, ignorance, lack of evidence, and evading the question in the world!

C'mon! See the show!

At the appropriate juncture Sabretooth all will be made clear.

[HyJinX]

At the appropriate juncture Sabretooth all will be made clear.

:rolleyes:

[Disbelief]

I shouldn't even waste the time to answer a question like this.

Why, it is a blatant lie to say it in seconds after the collapse when it is two days afterward.


Two days after the event the collapsed pile would have looked exactly the same.

You can not know this. How do you know what was done looking for survivors?

[bill smith]

Why, it is a blatant lie to say it in seconds after the collapse when it is two days afterward.



You can not know this. How do you know what was done looking for survivors?

They said that there was nobody in WTC7 at collapse.

[Horatius]

Ah well, we will see in the fullness of time.


No, we really won't.



At the appropriate juncture Sabretooth all will be made clear.



No, it really won't.

[bill smith]

No, we really won't.







No, it really won't.

In due course my dear Horatius....in due course

[Disbelief]

They said that there was nobody in WTC7 at collapse.

So, you admit that it was a lie to say seconds afterward then.

You also think that they did no verification that everyone was out? Of course they did.

[Sabretooth]

At the appropriate juncture Sabretooth all will be made clear.

Somehow, I really doubt it.

:bs:

[Horatius]

In due course my dear Horatius....in due course



Hey, I'm just making another prediction about your actions and results. So far I'm doing pretty well on that score.


But hey, do feel free to come back here and post an "I told you so!" if you ever do get off your ass and prove my prediction wrong.


I won't be holding my breath, of course.

[tsig]

At the appropriate juncture Sabretooth all will be made clear.

Bill, you're starting to sound like a Magic 8 Ball.


http://www.thefind.com/family/info-magic-8-ball

[JLord]

At the appropriate juncture Sabretooth all will be made clear.

What are you talking about? Do you have some information that you are not revealing, or are you predicting some future revelation from another source?

In either case I am still interested in knowing if you are able to come up with any possible theories as to why a conspiracy would target WTC7. You have probably been the most helpful poster in this thread so far in terms of providing information so that is why I am asking you specifically.

(although I'm still interested in anyone else's theories as well)

[tsig]

Hey, I'm just making another prediction about your actions and results. So far I'm doing pretty well on that score.


But hey, do feel free to come back here and post an "I told you so!" if you ever do get off your ass and prove my prediction wrong.


I won't be holding my breath, of course.

Try this link:

http://8ball.tridelphia.net/

You'll get better answers

[bill smith]

This is I guess what I should have been asking all along. I am willing to accept that the tower was demolished and I should have made this clear in my original post.

I also accept that the had to do to hide evidence of the failed plane attack. I didn't realize this when I first posted so I asked the wrong question.

Knowing what I now know, I will ask again a different way:

What possible conspiracy theory (or grand strategic plan) can you think of in which it would make sense to have WTC7 as a target?

9/11 was designed to 'shock and awe' the American people into a trance-like state in which they would go along with any kind of government excess.

It worked perfectly as you are all aware.

But in order to set up the conditions for the 'shock and awe' mechanic the stage had to be set- quite literally in lots of ways.

In this case the'stage' was New York on 9/11 and the attractions on the stage were WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

The plan was for WTC1 to be struck by the first plane. Then a 20-minute gap while people all over America called each other and televisions were switched on in their millions in nice time to catch the second plane with the impressive Hollywood-spectacular style fireball. At this point hndreds of millions of people are watching spellbound and terrified....and then the last plane comes screaming out of the sky in a high-speed powerdive and ploughs straight into the roof of WTC7.

If you thought the WTC2 fireball was spectacular you cannot imagine what the WTC7 one was designed to look like.

But of course the best laid plans and all that.....Flight 93 got held up on the runway for 40 minutes by a fire making it too late to carry on with it's mission of hitting WTC7. So the perps sent it out over rural Pennsylvania while they worked out what to do.

Then they lit those unlikely looking fires in WTC7 after the collapse of the North Tower hoping they would develop into a general inferno allowing them to demolish the building under that cover. Unfortunately the fires did not really take and with the lowering of the light they had to go ahead and demolish the building anyway at 5:20.

[aggle-rithm]

Bill, you're starting to sound like a Magic 8 Ball.


http://www.thefind.com/family/info-magic-8-ball

Hee! They need to come out with a special truther edition that says things like, "I don't know, that's why we need a new investigation", and "I don't have a theory", and "google '9/11', you'll find all the answers there!"

[DGM]

Then they lit those unlikely looking fires in WTC7 after the collapse of the North Tower hoping they would develop into a general inferno allowing them to demolish the building under that cover. Unfortunately the fires did not really take and with the lowering of the light they had to go ahead and demolish the building anyway at 5:20.

It must be fun working from "whole cloth" with no need to consider reality.

[beachnut]

9/11 was designed to 'shock and awe' the American people into a trance-like state in which they would go along with any kind of government excess.

It worked perfectly as you are all aware.

...
WTC 7 was on fire, it fell; that is what buildings do in fire. You were lied to by 911 truth and you have zero capability to resist the idiotic delusions they have, so you spread them. It is called failure and ignorance.

You are exactly what you say others are; gullible. You are the one who is in a trance state spewing lies and posting idiotic nonsense. This post the proof.

[JLord]

But in order to set up the conditions for the 'shock and awe' mechanic the stage had to be set- quite literally in lots of ways.

In this case the'stage' was New York on 9/11 and the attractions on the stage were WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.


That is a fine explanation of what happened, but I am still unclear as to why building seven was targetted or how this would fit into the conspiracy. Are you saying that they just needed another building to crash into and make a spectacular explosion and it didn't really matter what building and they just randomly decided on building seven?

Flight 93 got held up on the runway for 40 minutes by a fire making it too late to carry on with it's mission of hitting WTC7.

What happened within the 40 minutes that made it too late to carry out the mission? After 40 minutes there would surely be a lot of cameras on scene. Or is that exactly what they were trying to avoid, having too many cameras around?

[Sabretooth]

9/11 was designed to 'shock and awe' the American people into a trance-like state in which they would go along with any kind of government excess.

It worked perfectly as you are all aware.

But in order to set up the conditions for the 'shock and awe' mechanic the stage had to be set- quite literally in lots of ways.

In this case the'stage' was New York on 9/11 and the attractions on the stage were WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

The plan was for WTC1 to be struck by the first plane. Then a 20-minute gap while people all over America called each other and televisions were switched on in their millions in nice time to catch the second plane with the impressive Hollywood-spectacular style fireball. At this point hndreds of millions of people are watching spellbound and terrified....and then the last plane comes screaming out of the sky in a high-speed powerdive and ploughs straight into the roof of WTC7.

If you thought the WTC2 fireball was spectacular you cannot imagine what the WTC7 one was designed to look like.

But of course the best laid plans and all that.....Flight 93 got held up on the runway for 40 minutes by a fire making it too late to carry on with it's mission of hitting WTC7. So the perps sent it out over rural Pennsylvania while they worked out what to do.

Then they lit those unlikely looking fires in WTC7 after the collapse of the North Tower hoping they would develop into a general inferno allowing them to demolish the building under that cover. Unfortunately the fires did not really take and with the lowering of the light they had to go ahead and demolish the building anyway at 5:20.

That is the most fantastical, baseless, fact less, and dim-witted load of bat**** craziness I have ever seen…

Does a whole post qualify for the stundies?

[excaza]

What a wild story. And again, if they're were going for "shock & awe" why wouldn't they go for the Chrysler or Empire State Buildings? That would definitely piss off a lot more people than WTC7. There was absolutely nothing significant or symbolic about WTC7.

Nice try though.

[Sabretooth]

What a wild story. And again, if they're were going for "shock & awe" why wouldn't they go for the Chrysler or Empire State Buildings?

Naw. Too obvious. They were going for "subtle shock & awe".

[bill smith]

That is a fine explanation of what happened, but I am still unclear as to why building seven was targetted or how this would fit into the conspiracy. Are you saying that they just needed another building to crash into and make a spectacular explosion and it didn't really matter what building and they just randomly decided on building seven?



What happened within the 40 minutes that made it too late to carry out the mission? After 40 minutes there would surely be a lot of cameras on scene. Or is that exactly what they were trying to avoid, having too many cameras around?

Just think of all those helicopters hanging in the sky with cameras rolling all ready to catch the plane screaming down in a powerdive and huge explosion into the roof of WTC7 ? The wall-to-wall coverage day and night would have been splendidly enhanced just as the 'shock and awe' effect would be considerably reinforced.

If the plane had arrived 40 minutes late the chances were that they might have encountered some fighters. I believe the plane was under remote control anyway and if it HAD been shot down, explaining an empty plane with state-of-the-art remote technology would have been kind of uncomfortable.

[HawksFan]

Yeah, Bill, why WTC7? Why not the Empire State or Chrysler buildings?

Screaming power dive? Really? That's the best you've got?

I'd never even heard of 7 until 9/12.

[Disbelief]

If the plane had arrived 40 minutes late the chances were that they might have encountered some fighters. I believe the plane was under remote control anyway and if it HAD been shot down, explaining an empty plane with state-of-the-art remote technology woulld have been kind of uncomfortable.

Why would they have shot down a remote controlled empty plane?

Wait, you already think that the plane was shot down over Shanksville. What's the location difference mean?

[The Charnel Expanse]

Uh... Flight 93 took off from New Jersey and made it across all of Pennsylvania before it was hijacked. Wouldn't it have made more sense to hijack another plane coming out of Boston-Logan if their intention was to hit WTC7 and the attack was time-sensitive?

[excaza]

If the plane had arrived 40 minutes late the chances were that they might have encountered some fighters. I believe the plane was under remote control anyway and if it HAD been shot down, explaining an empty plane with state-of-the-art remote technology woulld have been kind of uncomfortable.

The plane crashed into a field. No remote controls were found. It was not empty. It was also heading towards DC, not NYC.

[JLord]

Just think of all those helicopters haging in the sky with cameras rolling all ready to catch the plane screaming down in a powerdive and huge explosion into the roof of WTC7 ? The wall-to-wall coverage day and night would have been spendidly enhanced just as the 'shock and awe' effect would be considerably reinforced.


So just to be clear then, there is no particular reason in your view why it was building 7 as opposed to anywhere else? In other words they just needed a third building within view of the first two and it could have been any nearby building?

If the plane had arrived 40 minutes late the chances were that they might have encountered some fighters. I believe the plane was under remote control anyway and if it HAD been shot down, explaining an empty plane with state-of-the-art remote technology woulld have been kind of uncomfortable

How would shooting down the plane wind up leaving more suspicious evidence than if the plane just crashes in a field? I am assuming they crashed that plane in the field on purpose if it was remote controlled. It would seem to me that being shot out of the sky would be an even better means of destroying any evidence than just crashing in a field.

[Horatius]

Well well, looks like we finally got some sort of a straight answer from bill. Of course, like all such straight answers from truthers, it's still full of holes.



In this case the'stage' was New York on 9/11 and the attractions on the stage were WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

The plan was for WTC1 to be struck by the first plane. Then a 20-minute gap while people all over America called each other and televisions were switched on in their millions in nice time to catch the second plane with the impressive Hollywood-spectacular style fireball. At this point hndreds of millions of people are watching spellbound and terrified....and then the last plane comes screaming out of the sky in a high-speed powerdive and ploughs straight into the roof of WTC7.



So the best you can come up with is "Even more Shock&Awe"? Exactly how was WTC 7 supposed to produce more shock and awe than the earlier crash into the second tower, which was broadcast live by pretty much every news service in the world?



If you thought the WTC2 fireball was spectacular you cannot imagine what the WTC7 one was designed to look like.



Oh, I see, you answer the above with baseless speculation.

So, if the prepared "fireball" for WTC 7 was so much more spectacular, how is it it collapsed in such an unassuming manner? It's safe to say its eventual fire and collapse was one of the least dramatic events of that day. Did they unplug the fireworks? While the building was on fire? And Unoccupied?

Oh, and if the third plane was intended to hit WTC 7 just so we could see yet another crash on live TV, why was the fourth plane crashed into the Pentagon? Did they just skip the drama for that one?

Also note, that had flight 93 hit the Capitol or Whitehouse, as most people believe was intended, we still would have gotten the Live TV Shock&AWE! that bill claims they wanted from, oh, what building was that again? Oh, right, the one no one had ever heard of.


But of course the best laid plans and all that.....Flight 93 got held up on the runway for 40 minutes by a fire making it too late to carry on with it's mission of hitting WTC7. So the perps sent it out over rural Pennsylvania while they worked out what to do.



Because of course there's no point in crashing it into WTC 7 after the Twin Towers collapsed, right? By that point, no one was pointing any TV cameras at the WTC complex. Another plane coming screaming in at that point would have had no useful result, so we might as well ditch it, blow up the building anyway, and make it look all suspicious-like.



Then they lit those unlikely looking fires in WTC7 after the collapse of the North Tower hoping they would develop into a general inferno allowing them to demolish the building under that cover. Unfortunately the fires did not really take and with the lowering of the light they had to go ahead and demolish the building anyway at 5:20.



And of course they decided all this, and got the men in place to accomplish it, in the time between 8:42 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks#8 :13_.E2.80.93_8:58_am) and 10:03 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks#1 0:00_.E2.80.93_10:53_am).

[Bell]

Just think of all those helicopters haging in the sky with cameras rolling all ready to catch the plane screaming down in a powerdive and huge explosion into the roof of WTC7 ? The wall-to-wall coverage day and night would have been spendidly enhanced just as the 'shock and awe' effect would be considerably reinforced.

If the plane had arrived 40 minutes late the chances were that they might have encountered some fighters. I believe the plane was under remote control anyway and if it HAD been shot down, explaining an empty plane with state-of-the-art remote technology woulld have been kind of uncomfortable.

:dl:

[excaza]

One would think 'power diving' into the White House would be the ultimate shock and awe, not some building nobody outside of NYC had ever heard of.

[sheeplesnshills]

This is I guess what I should have been asking all along. I am willing to accept that the tower was demolished and I should have made this clear in my original post."

Why? There is not evidence that it was. None.

"I also accept that the had to do to hide evidence of the failed plane attack. I didn't realize this when I first posted so I asked the wrong question."

What failed attack? No plane was heading for the WTC7

Knowing what I now know, I will ask again a different way:

What possible conspiracy theory (or grand strategic plan) can you think of in which it would make sense to have WTC7 as a target?

None, it was an insignificant (well relatively) building in a world of bigger better targets. Its destruction makes no sense other than as collateral damage.

[The Charnel Expanse]

I'm gonna stick with my poltergeist theory.

[Scott Jurgenson]

Uh... Flight 93 took off from New Jersey and made it across all of Pennsylvania before it was hijacked. Wouldn't it have made more sense to hijack another plane coming out of Boston-Logan if their intention was to hit WTC7 and the attack was time-sensitive?

No that makes too much sense to fit into his **** tard conspiracy.

[Scott Jurgenson]

Why can't CT's just stop and consider that maybe...just MAYBE...building 7 was not a smoking gun or significant at all. Maybe it just came down becuase a sky skraper fell on top of it and fires weakened it. Why can't they just accept that it is a possibility?

[excaza]

Why can't CT's just stop and consider that maybe...just MAYBE...building 7 was not a smoking gun or significant at all. Maybe it just came down becuase a sky skraper fell on top of it and fires weakened it. Why can't they just accept that it is a possibility?

Because they think Occam is a new camera from Nikon.

[Sabretooth]

Why can't CT's just stop and consider that maybe...just MAYBE...building 7 was not a smoking gun or significant at all. Maybe it just came down becuase a sky skraper fell on top of it and fires weakened it. Why can't they just accept that it is a possibility?

They would have to enter reality first.

If they accept one, they would be expected to accept the next. And we all know they are far too stubborn and idiotic to admit they were wrong.

[The Charnel Expanse]

Here's United 93's flight path
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UA93_path.svg
In what universe does that lead it anywhere close to Lower Manhattan?

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=bill smith;6264027]9/11 was designed to 'shock and awe'

No argument there

the American people into a trance-like state in which they would go along with any kind of government excess.

Yes perhaps Osama hoped the the US gov would overreact. They did.

It worked perfectly as you are all aware.

I don't see that they got away with "any kind of excess"

But in order to set up the conditions for the 'shock and awe' mechanic the stage had to be set- quite literally in lots of ways.

Why, four plane loads of terrorists seem to have managed just fine without setting any stages......

In this case the'stage' was New York on 9/11 and the attractions on the stage were WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

Nobody had heard of WTC7 prior to 911, it makes no sense as a target when you have The Empire State building, The Chrysler building, the Statue of Liberty, three major airports with lines of planes full of passengers on the ground, Times square etc etc

The plan was for WTC1 to be struck by the first plane. Then a 20-minute gap while people all over America called each other and televisions were switched on in their millions in nice time to catch the second plane with the impressive Hollywood-spectacular style fireball. At this point hndreds of millions of people are watching spellbound and terrified....and then the last plane comes screaming out of the sky in a high-speed powerdive and ploughs straight into the roof of WTC7.

where your evidence for that......and why the pentagon?, was that another plane that was supposed to hit WTC6 and got lost????

If you thought the WTC2 fireball was spectacular you cannot imagine what the WTC7 one was designed to look like.

Why would it look any different? you don't think two of the tallest buildings in the world collapsing was impressive enough??????...........

But of course the best laid plans and all that.....Flight 93 got held up on the runway for 40 minutes by a fire making it too late to carry on with it's mission of hitting WTC7. So the perps sent it out over rural Pennsylvania while they worked out what to do.

sent it out? how?

Then they lit those unlikely looking fires in WTC7 after the collapse of the North Tower hoping they would develop into a general inferno allowing them to demolish the building under that cover. Unfortunately the fires did not really take and with the lowering of the light they had to go ahead and demolish the building anyway at 5:20.

and the NYFD just stood back and watched them do that????? What unlikely looking fires? The NYFD said there were big uncontrolled fires and the building was failing.......and we are supposed to believe you with your zero evidence, over them? I think not.

OK Bill thanks for showing us you are as insane as Jammo.